Cause And Origin Response

[x635 4,066]

This thought is based on different systems I have worked in.

 

When a working fire is confirmed, when should cause and origin be dispatched? And, should they respond "Code 3"?

 

I've always been taught they should be dispatched on the initial (structure fire) response. This allows for maximum evidence preservation, and a better "view" for investigators. Some departments, for example such as Yonkers, dispatches an investigator on the initial confirmed working structure fire assignment.

 

Yet, I note other departments in the past have had in their pre-planned assignments that cause and origin investigators get dispatched on request, most often towards the end of the incident.

 

Your thoughts?

 

 

[SageVigiles 1,194]

Michigan v. Tyler, Fire Marshal can enter without a warrant to determine cause and origin within a "reasonable" amount of time. In my experience, the generally considered best practice is to have an FM unit on scene before suppression units take up. So they should absolutely be dispatched sooner rather than later, and they should be responding as any other emergency unit would.

 

Down here our Fire Marshals are members of the FD who go through the police academy and respond to fire scenes, they're generally added on or right after the Working Fire Dispatch.

Edited May 23, 2016 by SageVigiles

[FireMedic049 597]

My thought is that you should consult with your investigators and see when THEY want to be notified.  Our investigations are performed by the County's Fire Marshall office.  Their investigators have told us to call for them as soon as we think they may be needed.

 

 

I can't see much need for them to respond in any manner other than non-emergency.

[SageVigiles 1,194]

15 minutes ago, EmsFirePolice said:

I can see both sides. It'd most likely be easier for Cause and Origin to be notified during the fire. However, some chief's may not know what the fire was caused by (until the end) in which the Cause and Origin team would be requested to the scene.

 

This raises a few questions for me, perhaps because I don't know the structure of NY's fire investigation system...

1. How would a Fire Chief know what did or did not cause the fire unless they were a trained/certified Fire Investigator? If they were a Fire Investigator, why would they need a C&O Team?

2. Is a trained/certified Fire Investigator NOT routinely dispatched on every fire in NY State? If not, why not?

 

5 minutes ago, FireMedic049 said:

My thought is that you should consult with your investigators and see when THEY want to be notified.  Our investigations are performed by the County's Fire Marshall office.  Their investigators have told us to call for them as soon as we think they may be needed.

 

 

I can't see much need for them to respond in any manner other than non-emergency.

 

I typically don't like to get into lights/siren discussions, but this one catches my attention. As I mentioned in my previous post, according to the Supreme Court, in order to avoid needed a warrant to make entry, the investigator needs to be on scene before the FD leaves.  Why wouldn't a Fire Investigator need to respond with lights and siren?

[somebuffyguy 190]

20 minutes ago, SageVigiles said:

Why wouldn't a Fire Investigator need to respond with lights and siren?

Has anyone ever died waiting for the Fire investigator to arrive? The FD should still be there for long enough while overhauling to give the investigator plenty of time to arrive. I've personally never been at a fire in Westchester where we had to stand around doing nothing waiting for them. And if you are completely done with operations, release the assignment and leave one crew on scene. I couldn't justify the risk of sending a fire investigator to a scene lights and sirens. 

[FireMedic049 597]

21 minutes ago, SageVigiles said:

I typically don't like to get into lights/siren discussions, but this one catches my attention. As I mentioned in my previous post, according to the Supreme Court, in order to avoid needed a warrant to make entry, the investigator needs to be on scene before the FD leaves.  Why wouldn't a Fire Investigator need to respond with lights and siren?

Well, they aren't needed for suppression purposes and we always maintain control of the scene until they arrive, so that pretty much eliminates the need for the emergent response.  So other than probably arriving sooner to start the investigation, there's not much to be gained from the emergent response.

[FireMedic049 597]

30 minutes ago, EmsFirePolice said:

Most causes of fires (well here in the area) are usually found out by the chief.  How do they do that since it sounds like they aren't certified/trained fire investigators?  

 

If they don't know, or need help, this is when the C&O team comes into play.  How often do they need help? 

 

I can't speak for the whole state, but I know, down in Westchester, certified/trained Fire Investigators aren't routinely dispatched on each fire. However, I don't know why. 

 

[SageVigiles 1,194]

7 hours ago, somebuffyguy said:

Has anyone ever died waiting for the Fire investigator to arrive? The FD should still be there for long enough while overhauling to give the investigator plenty of time to arrive. I've personally never been at a fire in Westchester where we had to stand around doing nothing waiting for them. And if you are completely done with operations, release the assignment and leave one crew on scene. I couldn't justify the risk of sending a fire investigator to a scene lights and sirens. 

 

So by that logic, a Crime Scene Unit (or for that matter, almost any other Detective or investigative resource) shouldn't respond lights and siren either... After all, the victim in a Homicide case is already dead, right?  Bottom line: The collection and preservation of evidence is a time sensitive matter, so you can absolutely justify it (and many agencies do).

 

7 hours ago, EmsFirePolice said:

Most causes of fires (well here in the area) are usually found out by the chief. If they don't know, or need help, this is when the C&O team comes into play. I can't speak for the whole state, but I know, down in Westchester, certified/trained Fire Investigators aren't routinely dispatched on each fire. However, I don't know why.

Are Fire Chiefs in New York required to take some sort of Fire Investigation training? Are they required to re-certify after a period of time? If not, by what method are they basing their cause and origin determination?

 

I know (since mine just lapsed) that in CT, Fire Officials (Marshals, Deputy Marshals, Investigators, and Inspectors) are required to complete professional development training hours every three years in order to maintain certification. There are also professional certifications (CFEI and CFI) out there that are accepted in some states. ATF has their own certification process as well for their Certified Fire Investigators.

Edited May 23, 2016 by SageVigiles

[Zippy39 8]

In NYS, the fire chief is responsible for determining and reporting the cause of the fire, therefore sometimes they can determine it themselves without a C&O response. I believe they get basic C&O training as part of their command classes. In Westchester, once the C&O teams were formed around 20+ years ago, their use increased over time like any other resource. If my memory serves me correctly, prior to that, the DA's office had one investigator who did the C&O work, obviously he couldn't be at every fire.

 

As for lights and sirens, I was a PD Detective for 18+ years, I never responded to a scene that already had cops at it (i.e., a past burglary, robbery, homicide) with lights and sirens. There is no need for it on a scene where the active crime is over and the scene is being held down. In my last few years when I was actively investigating fires, I often went out upon the initial call so as to get there early for the reasons stated above. In that case I would use lights and sirens.  If I was showing up after the fire was knocked down, I didn't.

[dwcfireman 656]

10 hours ago, Zippy39 said:

In NYS, the fire chief is responsible for determining and reporting the cause of the fire, therefore sometimes they can determine it themselves without a C&O response.

 

That would be correct.  The state teaches this in a few classes (Fire Officer I, Fire Behavior and Arson Awareness, Principles of Fire Instruction, and (correct me if I'm wrong) FFI).  My opinion is to always bring in an outside investigator, and it's an opinion that I share with several fire investigators and ex-chiefs that I have met throughout the years.  Even IF the cause is completely obvious, it always seems to me to be a great idea to bring in an expert that wasn't involved in fireground operations to help with C&O determination.  This allows two things: The first being that the investigator has no attachment to the fire.  He/She is there just to determine the cause and origin, without having an attachment to everything that went on with the fire fight, search, rescue, etc.  The second reason being a second opinion.  The chief can walk in and say, "Yup, it was the coffee maker."  But the investigator can come in and say, "Yes, it was," and, "It was [an electrical failure of the hot plate;" OR, "Sorry, but it was a switch failure on the electric can opener, not the coffee maker next to it."

 

On 5/23/2016 at 10:50 PM, FireMedic049 said:

Well, they aren't needed for suppression purposes and we always maintain control of the scene until they arrive, so that pretty much eliminates the need for the emergent response.  So other than probably arriving sooner to start the investigation, there's not much to be gained from the emergent response.

 

This is not always  the case.  I know of many counties in New York State where the battalion chiefs or fire coordinators (names differ throughout the state) are also the fire investigators.  Their initial response is an emergency operation (which would require lights and sirens) to assist with fireground operational tactics and strategy/planning, and give aide to the incident commander.  They will then take note of things happening while the fire is still burning, hence beginning their investigations well before the fire is out.  After suppression is complete, they will then turn to the interior to complete the investigation.  Essentially, in counties where budgets are smaller and manpower is less, fewer people have to do more jobs (do more with less, just like everything else).  I completely admit that this contradicts my statement above about having a second, OUTSIDE opinion for investigating a fire, but in reality you have to do what you have to do to get the job done.

[JM15 386]

It is always electrical....

[pasobuff 38]

NYS General Municipal Law Section 204-C Plan for arson investigation

The governing body of each county except a county contained wholly within a city, and the governing body of any city in which a county is wholly contained shall develop a plan for arson investigation within such county or city.  Such plan shall be submitted to the office of fire prevention and control for approval. No plan shall be approved unless it provides for the coordination of fire, law enforcement and prosecutorial services.

 

Furthermore, Section 204-d requires that the fire chief of any fire department or company shall, in addition to any other duties assigned to him by law or contract, to the extent reasonably possible determine or cause to be determined the cause of each fire or explosion which the fire department or company has been called to suppress. 

[FireMedic049 597]

19 hours ago, dwcfireman said:

This is not always  the case.  I know of many counties in New York State where the battalion chiefs or fire coordinators (names differ throughout the state) are also the fire investigators.  Their initial response is an emergency operation (which would require lights and sirens) to assist with fireground operational tactics and strategy/planning, and give aide to the incident commander.  They will then take note of things happening while the fire is still burning, hence beginning their investigations well before the fire is out.  After suppression is complete, they will then turn to the interior to complete the investigation.  Essentially, in counties where budgets are smaller and manpower is less, fewer people have to do more jobs (do more with less, just like everything else).  I completely admit that this contradicts my statement above about having a second, OUTSIDE opinion for investigating a fire, but in reality you have to do what you have to do to get the job done.

My comments were specific to my area and in response to a question asked.  

 

With very few exceptions, fire investigation is handled at the County level, not department or municipality level.  The Fire Marshall's responsibility is the investigation.  They aren't used for suppression in this county and departments know that they need to hold the scene until the Fire Marshall arrives.

 

Therefore, from our perspective, they really don't need to respond emergency to incidents.  If they feel the need to do otherwise, that's their call.

 

But let's be clear, there's a distinct difference between a dedicated fire investigator (what I was talking about) and a person who responds to mitigate incidents, but is also responsible for the investigation of that incident (what you described).  As such, the criteria to determine the rate of response for each is not the same.

[INIT915 1,119]

On May 23, 2016 at 6:16 AM, SageVigiles said:

 

So by that logic, a Crime Scene Unit (or for that matter, almost any other Detective or investigative resource) shouldn't respond lights and siren either... After all, the victim in a Homicide case is already dead, right?  Bottom line: The collection and preservation of evidence is a time sensitive matter, so you can absolutely justify it (and many agencies do).

 Responsible crime scene units typically do not respond with lights and sirens. Buffy crime scene units, well that's another story. Much risk, little benefit.