Arson Investigation Case Study Examples

Arson Investigation

How does the law that affects search and seizures pertain to arson investigations? There are two major court cases that we should look at. First, we will give a little background on the Michigan v Tyler case and the Michigan v. Clifford case. In Michigan v. Tyler a court case that was decided in 1978. On January 21, 1970, a fire started in a furniture store, the fire department responded and began working. Later a plastic container with flammable liquids was found and reported as possible arson. The chief did like any other and had an investigator come in and began investigating. Well, the smoke and steam became too much so the investigation stopped. Later, the investigation started again after everyone had left

and the investigator removed some of the evidence. After that other investigators collected evidence. Everything was going well, the trail went to court and the respondents were charged for trying to burn the store. Unfortunately, and the part that is relative is the case was reversed because, the courts said that after everyone left a warrant was needed to return to the scene, (Michigan v. Tyler, 436 US 499, 1978). The next case, which was a private residence, was Michigan v. Clifford. After firefighters extinguished the fire and left the house, The investigators did not arrive until five hours later. The problem with their late arrival was there was already a crew boarding up the windows and removing water from the basement. As you could imagine this would make it difficult to complete an investigation. So they entered anyway a began their investigation without a search warrant. The investigators were able to find an incendiary device, made from fuel cans and a crockpot. The investigators also went upstairs and found more evidence linking the occupants to arson. But, again all their hard work was overturned, because they obtained their evidence illegally (Michigan v. Clifford, 464 US 287, 1984).
How do these two court cases affect the way arson investigations are handled?

In Michigan v. Tyler, the US Supreme Court ruled 'exigent circumstances' existed when they were talking about a fire suppression crews that entered a building to extinguish a fire. The ruling would begin as a guideline to fire/arson investigators for following the fourth amendment guarantee against unlawful search and seizure. In Michigan v. Clifford, the US Supreme Court ruled that a consent to search or an administrative search warrant must be obtained to conduct a search for fire origin and cause when the investigation is not a continuation of the original entry. This is why we always leave someone on scene until the investigation is done or it is turned over to another department. Upon an investigator determining the fire cause to be arson, the investigator must stop the search and again obtain a consent to search from the property owner or a criminal search warrant. This draws a line between an origin-and-cause search and that of a criminal search. If a person refuses to a consent search, the scene can be secured and a criminal search warrant obtained for a continuation of a search. There should now be some guidelines established for investigators, when it deals with the conduct of investigations. Some suggestions for procedures include, making sure there is contact between the investigator and the prosecutor. Also, there should be guidelines that address the making of an arson team. Next, you should have a waiver for the fire scene origin and cause examination. An affidavit form should be used with any arson scene search warrant, and finally better training for all firefighters on arson detection (United States

1996).
In conclusion, these two court cases had major impacts on the way we do investigations. Although we entered the structures and extinguished the flames, it does not give us the right after the scene is over to return and start digging around as we please. We have to follow procedures and obtain search warrants.