Quick question: "don't put the fire out!"

[abaduck 123]

Hope a resident legal eagle can put me right here:

There's a working structure fire. For the sake of argument, let's say it's an isolated structure; there are no threatened exposures.

Under what circumstances, if any, can the owner of the property say: "Let it burn. I don't want it put out, get the hell of my property!"?

I would assume that the owner has no right to direct the Chief in that manner; you don't know if it's arson, you don't know if it's a fire deliberately set to destroy evidence or cover up a serious crime. You only have the word of the owner that there's no-one in the structure.

What does the law say? With a cite of the law, if possible.

Thanks

Mike

[x129K 1,393]

Good post.....I heard this on the scanner a while back locally.

I was always under the impression that the Incident Commander was OBLIGATED by law to confine and extinguish, and was also tasked with determining the source.

[jfmuller 23]

Hope a resident legal eagle can put me right here:

There's a working structure fire. For the sake of argument, let's say it's an isolated structure; there are no threatened exposures.

Under what circumstances, if any, can the owner of the property say: "Let it burn. I don't want it put out, get the hell of my property!"?

I would assume that the owner has no right to direct the Chief in that manner; you don't know if it's arson, you don't know if it's a fire deliberately set to destroy evidence or cover up a serious crime. You only have the word of the owner that there's no-one in the structure.

What does the law say? With a cite of the law, if possible.

Thanks

Mike

Interesting read about this topic:

Can a homeowner whose house is on fire refuse AMA?

The following has a nice list of NYS laws that deal with the fire service.

NYS OFPC has link to laws

In the above scenario, the homeowner is in violation of 204-e since he has not received permission of the chief, you cannot burn your own property.

 §  204-e.  Unauthorized  destruction  of  property.  No  individual or
  corporation having a possessory or proprietary interest in a building or
  motor vehicle within the meaning of section  150.05  of  the  penal  law
  shall  ignite  a  fire  or  cause an explosion in such building or motor
  vehicle without the prior written permission of the chief of  the  local
  department  or fire company with the responsibility to respond to a fire
  call, or the chief's designee.

[NJMedic 96]

I doubt it and I would fight this fire anyway.

What happens if someone is trapped?

What happens if he or anyone else et the fire to cover a crime? He is creating a public hazard(sp?)

At the very least he polluting the environment

Edited April 9, 2011 by NJMedic

[helicopper 1,050]

Link to Prior Discussion on Similar Topic

[abaduck 123]

Thanks to those who responded, especially Helicopper; useful thread!

My starting point is that, regardless of common law (cited in AG report in linked thread), the one thing in statute law that I remember is that the Chief is empowered, and *required*, to attempt to determine, or cause to be determined (e.g. by calling C&O) the cause of any suspicious fire. I remember that from training.

It seems to me that ANY fire where the property owner, or someone who claims to be the owner, is attempting to exclude the FD and prevent suppression, is rendered suspicious *by that very act*. So an investigation is *mandatory* as per statute law. And the first step in investigation is... put the damn fire out!

Does that sound reasonable to everyone?

Mike

[dwcfireman 656]

Thanks to those who responded, especially Helicopper; useful thread!

My starting point is that, regardless of common law (cited in AG report in linked thread), the one thing in statute law that I remember is that the Chief is empowered, and *required*, to attempt to determine, or cause to be determined (e.g. by calling C&O) the cause of any suspicious fire. I remember that from training.

It seems to me that ANY fire where the property owner, or someone who claims to be the owner, is attempting to exclude the FD and prevent suppression, is rendered suspicious *by that very act*. So an investigation is *mandatory* as per statute law. And the first step in investigation is... put the damn fire out!

Does that sound reasonable to everyone?

Mike

BINGO! Since the chief has to make a determination in the cause, the fire must be put out. This is also covered by the NYS statute laws that a previous link takes you to. Regardless of the cause or size of the fire, if a fire department responds they must put the fire out (after all, that's what firefighters do, right?).

[helicopper 1,050]

Just to play devil's advocate for a minute...

You arrive at my burning house/shed/barn and I tell you the cause of the fire was me; I started it. There's the cause, no investigation necessary. I tell you that you shouldn't endanger yourselves or your equipment to fight a fire on an empty structure. You can call the PD to have me charged with arson but I have an affirmative defense that it's my property and I have the right to destroy it.

And don't fire departments sometimes let things burn (when it's safer than fighting it) or even start fires (controlled burns, prescribed fire programs, etc.)?

[x129K 1,393]

Just to play devil's advocate for a minute...

You arrive at my burning house/shed/barn and I tell you the cause of the fire was me; I started it. There's the cause, no investigation necessary. I tell you that you shouldn't endanger yourselves or your equipment to fight a fire on an empty structure. You can call the PD to have me charged with arson but I have an affirmative defense that it's my property and I have the right to destroy it.

And don't fire departments sometimes let things burn (when it's safer than fighting it) or even start fires (controlled burns, prescribed fire programs, etc.)?

Apparently you didnt notice my t-shirt, Pal!

[SageVigiles 1,194]

Michigan v. Tyler, 1978 Supreme Court case. Homeowner claims the Fire Marshal violated the 4th Amendment by seizing property for evidence without a warrant. The court agreed because the FMO came and went several times. But the part that's relevant here is that the Justices reaffirmed that firefighters entering a building on fire falls under exigent circumstances, meaning it is an exception to the requirement of a warrant. They have probable cause to enter (and extinguish) because its a matter of public safety.

Plus, I'm pretty sure the Fire Marshal is going to be interested to hear "the homeowner didn't want us to put it out..."

Michigan v. Tyler 1978

2. A burning building clearly presents an exigency of sufficient proportions to render a warrantless entry "reasonable," and, once in the building to extinguish a blaze, and for a reasonable time thereafter, firefighters may seize evidence of arson that is in plain view and investigate the causes of the fire. Thus, no Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations were committed by the firemen's entry to extinguish the blaze at respondents' store, nor by the fire chief's removal of the plastic containers. P. 436 U. S. 509.

[abaduck 123]

Just to play devil's advocate for a minute...

You arrive at my burning house/shed/barn and I tell you the cause of the fire was me; I started it. There's the cause, no investigation necessary. I tell you that you shouldn't endanger yourselves or your equipment to fight a fire on an empty structure. You can call the PD to have me charged with arson but I have an affirmative defense that it's my property and I have the right to destroy it.

I don't think they would have an affirmative defence to:

§ 204-e. Unauthorized destruction of property. No individual or

corporation having a possessory or proprietary interest in a building or

motor vehicle within the meaning of section 150.05 of the penal law

shall ignite a fire or cause an explosion in such building or motor

vehicle without the prior written permission of the chief of the local

department or fire company with the responsibility to respond to a fire

call, or the chief's designee.

As has already been cited.

As for what the alleged homeowner tells the Chief... ok, how do you know that's the homeowner? How do you know it isn't a neighbour or some other enemy of the homeowner who has set the place up? Where would the FD be when they get sued from arsehole to breakfast time, and their defence is 'well some guy came up to us and told us to let it burn...'??!!

Also, the very fact of confessing to arson would cause me to doubt the mental competence of the alleged homeowner.

No, I think we're still fully in the realm of exigent circumstances, where a 'prudent and reasonable' person would see a need to act first and ask questions later.

No harm in playing devil's advocate; I do the same myself on occasions. And get in trouble when I'm taken seriously!

Mike

Edited April 9, 2011 by abaduck

[FD828 77]

or move a town that requires you pay a subscription fee for fire service, just don't pay it and they will let your house burn down!

[JM15 386]

I always thought that whenever a fire department is called to a scene the IC has control of the property untill it is turned back over ti the owner or another appropriate agency. In a case like this i would have PD respond to deal with the "home owner" and then do our job. I cant seem to find an exact law that adresses the IC having control of the property though. Anyone know if it is "legit" or firehouse lore?

[64FFMJK 21]

Remember the owner may also have a good reason to tell you not to fight the fire so before chaging in find out why.

One of my friends reloads Ammo and probably has close to 10,000 rounds of ammo plus powder, lead and other related materials and I would not want to try to fight a fire at his house.

[PFDRes47cue 653]

Great thread! Good responses by all.

Two things....

1 - How do you know the "homeowner" is actually the homeowner?

2 - It is not uncommon to have controlled burns of houses, barns, etc. Make sure the public knows this and then have them set something up with the fire department.