BMW Fire: Armonk, NY 3/12/12 Posted On YouTube

[SOUSGT 357]

So, even for actual investigation concerns, I cannot take a cell phone for the pictures or videos? I'm just asking because I have been told by many fire investigators and well experienced officers that it is legal to do so (I've even witnessed it). The pictures and videos were considered evidence in those case.

I'm not trying to start an argument. If there is something I don't know, I just want to know the answer.

You seem have two situations here. The first is for videos and pictures the second is for evidence. Remember as a member of a municipal fire department whether volunteer or paid, you are part of the government. The constitution (remember that funny document that we are sworn to uphold and defend), guarantees certain freedoms from government (in this case us). Two parts that come to mind are the right to prevent the sezure of private property without due course. The second is the right to be secure in our personal papers and property. Taking a person’s cell phone or camera without a warrant is permitted only in certain limited circumstances. In addition should you take someones property unlawfully, it may not be able to be used in court. In fact you could have the entire case thrown out. Without going into a class in Con Law 101, the best advice I could give you is to leave any the investigation to a trained investigator or the police. Let them make the call on what evidentiary value a device holds. They should know the proceedures for obtaining evidence and the chain of evidence ect.

[SRS131EMTFF 471]

There could be very limited exceptions

What would these exceptions entail?

[INIT915 1,119]

What would these exceptions entail?

They would entail establishing reasonable cause to believe that the phone/camera had evidentiary value and that the probative value meet the legal standards for a Search Warrant. This cannot be met simply because your offended that some onlookers are being overly critical. You need tougher skin than that.

[SOUSGT 357]

What would these exceptions entail?

Nothing that would apply to a non-law enforcement entity.

[PFDRes47cue 653]

Speaking of the dangers of car fires, frequent poster and volunteer officer PFDRes47cue wants to slam them for staying back and waiting for the fire department to handle it. The nerve of these "cowards" recognizing a hazardous situation and waiting for the "professionals" to handle it. Why do we, cops and firefighters both, feel the pressing need to risk our safety just to dump $40 worth of dry chem into the grill of a car? The car is total loss. Open the car and trunk if possible, then step back and wait for a hose line.

I'm all for waiting for checking for immediate life threats, and stepping back waiting for a hose line, but a car fire in its early stages can be greatly knocked down or extinguished with a dry chem extinguisher depending on what is fueling the fire. The car in the lot is parked directly next to other vehicles, so going at it with a dry chem or two as long as the car is not well involved is not a terrible idea. It is not that fact that they are not helping that is the frustrating part, it is the fact they they know they should not help but think they should make some ridiculous comments. Obviously it is best if untrained civilians stay out of harms way...

Perhaps I am the the odd ball out but I try refrain from forming opinions or commenting on things that I do not know enough about. That is all I am saying, if you do not even know the name of the fire department, or the name of fire department personnel (firefighter) then why comment? Clearly a poor job done by a trained professional is going to be better then the untrained civilians attempt. This does not reflect my opinion of the job done in the video I am just going off of the fact that the commentators in the video think it is a poor job...would their effort be better?

On a side note, I am not a volunteer officer.

[BBBMF 158]

Please don't ever say it's ok to stick the nozzle of a dry chem extinguisher or anyone extinguisher near a car fire without the proper gear. Most times it can be held in check with a dry chem. But whats the point..ITS A CAR...and the one time you think it's ok is going to be the time you get hurt because something unforseen happens! There are many components which pop and blow in a car and sometimes, small fires escalates quickly, and thats when guys get hurt. What happens when you're up on the car trying to knock it with a dry chem and you don't notice the gas line is burning and now your shoes are on fire?

[mfc2257 464]

...a car fire in its early stages can be greatly knocked down or extinguished with a dry chem extinguisher depending on what is fueling the fire. The car in the lot is parked directly next to other vehicles, so going at it with a dry chem or two as long as the car is not well involved is not a terrible idea....

Although I don't disagree with the effectiveness of a dry chem being used, in this case I'd like to point out a few items that may warrant discussion:

1: A modern vehicle with locked doors and latched hood has a difficult engine compartment to get at. Fender liners, plastic pans that cover a good percentage of the bottom side of the engine compartment, elaborate cooling and headlight systems among other advances in automotive technology essentially seal the engine compartment from the elements. Getting enough dry chem to the fire might prove difficult, or impossible. This is especially true in a luxury automobile such as the BMW in this case where the manufacturer is attempting to eliminate as much noise from leaving the engine compartment as possible.

2: Caution should always be used when attacking a machinery or automobile fire based on the increased use of flammable metals in mechanical design. Magnesium engine blocks, wheels, brake components, etc are not uncommon and although you may be witnessing the orange flame and smoke of a traditional hydrocarbon fire, this evidence may be secondary to a metal fire deeper into the the automobile. Use of the wrong extinguishing agent can result in catastrophic results for the attack crew and bystanders. I have personally watched dry chem react adversely to a lawnmower fire where magnesium was used for the engine block. A class D extinguisher was eventually used and thankfully an explosion didn't occur.

3: Those pesky airbag cylinders and hybrid batteries... They are buried everywhere and anywhere you can imagine on a vehicle these days. They are not designed to survive a significant automobile fire, or the combined heat and cooling cycle that inevitably happens once the fire is mitigated. Don't assume that just because you've put the fire out and cooled the bumpers down like we were all taught years ago, that there isn't a secondary danger lurking ANYWHERE in the car. Space is at a premium these days and you'll find dangers in the oddest places.

[ny10570 745]

I'm all for waiting for checking for immediate life threats, and stepping back waiting for a hose line, but a car fire in its early stages can be greatly knocked down or extinguished with a dry chem extinguisher depending on what is fueling the fire. The car in the lot is parked directly next to other vehicles, so going at it with a dry chem or two as long as the car is not well involved is not a terrible idea. It is not that fact that they are not helping that is the frustrating part, it is the fact they they know they should not help but think they should make some ridiculous comments. Obviously it is best if untrained civilians stay out of harms way...

Perhaps I am the the odd ball out but I try refrain from forming opinions or commenting on things that I do not know enough about. That is all I am saying, if you do not even know the name of the fire department, or the name of fire department personnel (firefighter) then why comment? Clearly a poor job done by a trained professional is going to be better then the untrained civilians attempt. This does not reflect my opinion of the job done in the video I am just going off of the fact that the commentators in the video think it is a poor job...would their effort be better?

On a side note, I am not a volunteer officer.

My mistake on the officer part. Confused PVAC with PFD in my too often foggy memory. If you can't open the hood to access the fire your extinguishers will have no meaningful impact on said fire. In the vast majority of your cars, right behind the grill is that big old hunk of aluminum fins and tubing, the radiator. Right behind that is big old fan assembly. How much dry chem do you really think is getting to that fire? Even if you can pop the hood and attack the fire, all new car engines are covered in plastic to make them look nice. By the time the fire has burned through enough where you can reach it, it will likely have spread far enough that you'll be ineffective in extinguishing it and will still have a total loss. Now lets say hose bursts, piston explodes, battery explodes, whatever and one of these officers or well meaning bystanders is injured. How much injury is a burning car worth?? Cut hand, sure. Blinded, no. Scald burn to the face...? How about just the arm?

Is a poor job by a professional always better than an untrained civilian? I didn't see anything done on there any different than would have been done by an untrained civilian.

[xfirefighter484x 234]

Ok guys, I think any other posts EXCLUDING discussion of the Vehicle Fire itself should come into a new thread discussing legalities of taking property into custody for evidentiary purposes. All other discussion not related to the actual video, the vehicle fire, or anything as such, will be deleted.

[BFD1054 1,552]

While on the topic of car fire's and PPE (or lack there of) issues, take a look-see at this...

http://flashovertv.firerescue1.com/Media/3797-Firemen-in-drag-put-out-truck-fire/

WOW is all i have to say after watching this.

[FF398 45]

While on the topic of car fire's and PPE (or lack there of) issues, take a look-see at this...

http://flashovertv.firerescue1.com/Media/3797-Firemen-in-drag-put-out-truck-fire/

WOW is all i have to say after watching this.

WOW! I'm speechless...

Edited March 20, 2012 by FF398

[mike2931 13]

You can't just take a cell phone just for investigative purposes. Just to see how the fire started on a car fire isn't going to be good enough it's not like it was arson if it was I'm sure the PD would be involved in it. If you do get someones personal cell phone without their permission you are going to open yourself and the department up criminally and civil lawsuits. Plus your going to need good enough probable cause to go through the phone which is going to a search warrant to get any pictures or videos out of a civilain cell. FYI

[newsbuff 286]

While on the topic of car fire's and PPE (or lack there of) issues, take a look-see at this...

http://flashovertv.firerescue1.com/Media/3797-Firemen-in-drag-put-out-truck-fire/

WOW is all i have to say after watching this.

Yeah that video has been making its rounds, but I'm gonna give them credit where credit is due.

I hate parades and taking apparatus and members out of service for one, but that is a topic for another day. These guys fought that from a distance, didn't try to go up to the truck and pop the hood, but just lobbed water onto it. During that video, I didn't see them get engulfed by smoke or steam, and were always a full lane between them and the truck. What happened after the video ended, who knows, maybe they did just waltz up to the truck and go at it from there, in dresses.

The difference between this video and the one about Armonk, Armonk was dispatched to that fire and that's what they showed up with, these guys were just flagged down. Should you be ready for anything at any time, absolutely, but these were two completely different circumstances.

Edited March 21, 2012 by newsbuff

[robert benz 344]

Yeah that video has been making its rounds, but I'm gonna give them credit where credit is due.

I hate parades and taking apparatus and members out of service for one, but that is a topic for another day. These guys fought that from a distance, didn't try to go up to the truck and pop the hood, but just lobbed water onto it. During that video, I didn't see them get engulfed by smoke or steam, and were always a full lane between them and the truck. What happened after the video ended, who knows, maybe they did just waltz up to the truck and go at it from there, in dresses.

The difference between this video and the one about Armonk, Armonk was dispatched to that fire and that's what they showed up with, these guys were just flagged down. Should you be ready for anything at any time, absolutely, but these were two completely different circumstances.

so what you are saying is the end justify the means ???

[Pedro911 22]

This does not make Armonk look very good. Why is the guy with the irons trying to force the hood not in full PPE? oh yeah he must be a Chief.

[MoFire390 118]

Its not everyday you see some putting out a fire in drag...while proper ppe should always be worn. These guys are lucky that nothing major happened. As for the fool in the armonk video if he has an issue with the response of the fire department he needs to speak to the proper people, and focus his concerns to them. Cameras are everywhere! The other day I was on a call and was being video taped by the pts neighbor. Be careful stay safe

[efdcapt115 1,511]

....These guys fought that from a distance, didn't try to go up to the truck and pop the hood, but just lobbed water onto it. During that video, I didn't see them get engulfed by smoke or steam, and were always a full lane between them and the truck. What happened after the video ended, who knows, maybe they did just waltz up to the truck and go at it from there, in dresses....

Okay this kind of faux pas really gets under my panties! First thing, they took way too much of a risk smoking up, or possibly muddying those gorgeous gowns!

Second thing, hopefully they also had their nails done properly. Simply picking up a ho-ho(hose) could do irreparable damage to a very fine manicure and paint jaaahhb!

WHAT were they thiiinkiing??

So fiiiine...I'll give them credit for the EFFORRRT, but honestly they took very unnecessary risks on their EXTREMELY fine preparation and wardrobe. If they would have had hair extensions and put THOSE at risk as well, I would have confiscated this video as evidence and send it to the Fashion Police.

Think I'm kidding? Talk to the hand honeeeey...

[MoFire390 118]

Okay this kind of faux pas really gets under my panties! First thing, they took way too much of a risk smoking up, or possibly muddying those gorgeous gowns!

Second thing, hopefully they also had their nails done properly. Simply picking up a ho-ho(hose) could do irreparable damage to a very fine manicure and paint jaaahhb!

WHAT were they thiiinkiing??

So fiiiine...I'll give them credit for the EFFORRRT, but honestly they took very unnecessary risks on their EXTREMELY fine preparation and wardrobe. If they would have had hair extensions and put THOSE at risk as well, I would have confiscated this video as evidence and send it to the Fashion Police.

Think I'm kidding? Talk to the hand honeeeey...

Your scaring me capt. But 100 percent correct. If you don't have the proper tools to do the job right then find someone who does. You wouldn't want your mechanic working on your car with a sledge hammer and screw driver would you? I sure don't.

[JetPhoto 626]

That's why unless I'm going to a dress parade I bring my gear with me in the truck

The Fashion Police - Report Fashion Crimes Now!

Report fashion crimes, cast your vote, and make your own statements at The Fashion Police official site.

Report Fasion Crimes Here

[newsbuff 286]

so what you are saying is the end justify the means ???

Absolutely not. I'm not condoning, or saying, woo go ahead and just keep fighting in dresses!

So fiiiine...I'll give them credit for the EFFORRRT, but honestly they took very unnecessary risks on their EXTREMELY fine preparation and wardrobe. If they would have had hair extensions and put THOSE at risk as well, I would have confiscated this video as evidence and send it to the Fashion Police.

Haha, but really. It was absolutely an unnecessary risk, but you could "almost" claim that they made the best out of a bad situation.

If you don't have the proper tools to do the job right then find someone who does.

Yes, but in the time it takes for the people with the proper tools to get there, there are things that you can do....

Here's a great "what if"...

What if you and an officer are driving on the highway, you just picked up your engine from the shop, because it was there for minor routine maintenance. Everything has been tested, and it's ready to go in service. You get flagged down for a car on fire. Both of you didn't bring your gear with you because maybe you forgot it, or just weren't planning on needing it(again, what if). The nearest firehouse is 15 minutes away. Are you guys just gonna look at the car as it burns with 500 or 1000 gallons of water on wheels behind you, just because your wearing your station gear?

Come on, we can crucify them for wearing dresses all we want, but they probably would have looked worse just standing there(with the knowledge of what to do in their head), not doing a damn thing.

Edited March 21, 2012 by newsbuff

[dashield 61]

In my opinion, As a Volly Chief Officer not wearing your gear is excusable... It is extremely important to be setting the example for your subordinates. I am sure If that engine pulled up and the lone firefighter, with the driver, jumped off the rig in street clothes it would not be tolerated so why is the Chief, who actually performing firefighting activities standing their in street clothes. I always wear my gear at calls because I expect everyone else to, it's as simple as that.

If you are no wearing your gear you are just an educated bystander.

[rescue83 2]

http://www.ksdk.com/news/article/311581/28/Firefighters-fight-fire-in-evening-gowns

[robert benz 344]

Absolutely not. I'm not condoning, or saying, woo go ahead and just keep fighting in dresses!

Haha, but really. It was absolutely an unnecessary risk, but you could "almost" claim that they made the best out of a bad situation.

Yes, but in the time it takes for the people with the proper tools to get there, there are things that you can do....

Here's a great "what if"...

What if you and an officer are driving on the highway, you just picked up your engine from the shop, because it was there for minor routine maintenance. Everything has been tested, and it's ready to go in service. You get flagged down for a car on fire. Both of you didn't bring your gear with you because maybe you forgot it, or just weren't planning on needing it(again, what if). The nearest firehouse is 15 minutes away. Are you guys just gonna look at the car as it burns with 500 or 1000 gallons of water on wheels behind you, just because your wearing your station gear?

Come on, we can crucify them for wearing dresses all we want, but they probably would have looked worse just standing there(with the knowledge of what to do in their head), not doing a damn thing.

there is a big difference in your what if first case the engine going to the parade was it in service for a fire? it was manned or whatever you want to call that. ANYTIME our apparatus is manned the members ppe is along with them, going to training, the shop, fuel, parade, whatever. If the vehicle isnt in service, and moving, going out of town for repair or coming back from repair, no ppe, and you might not have a ff behind the wheel, as you need a cdl to move the apparatus at that point. My point is there are plenty of times that a fire apparatus gets a call or runs into a call while on the road. The first situation getting a call on the road, stop the rig get dressed and then proceed, nothing worse from the bystanders point of view of having an apparatus show up and there is a need for quick action, and now the ff's "decide" that they want to get into their gear. There could be a thousand reason's why they showed up in station wear but the public as we have already witnessed doesnt care about the truth, just a good story. so to end my rant the drags boys should have had their gear on the engine, they should have taken the time to get dressed, and last it was a car fire end of the week it will be a 4 x 4 metal square going on a ship somewhere, why get hurt or bring discredit to your dept for a burning hunk of garbage. I will answer your last part of the question with my own, is a police car with a shop mechanic behind the wheel checking the brakes, required to stop at a crime just because he is in a police vehicle?