Introduction
When a fire occurs, saving the lives of people is prioritized over any other activity. Therefore, firefighters are to be the first to arrive at a fire scene and extinguish the ignition to prevent it from spreading, as well as rescue possible victims of the fire. Despite the fact that investigation of the causes of fire is not less important, the standard procedure for managing fires exposes fire investigators to challenges beyond those caused by flame itself but also those caused by fire-fighting activities. Firefighters, as first responders to the emergency, need to act according to the protocol with the following investigation practices in mind. However, sometimes, the rescue operations, as well as the fire itself, are unpredictable, which causes significant destruction to the evidence. Therefore, it is important to research and analyze how fire fighting processes affect the investigation and collection of evidence in order to contribute to the scope of knowledge about challenges to investigation work.
Fire Fighting Practices Obstructing Fire Investigation
The work on investigating a fire is crucial when identifying the cause of the inflammation and determining whether it was of accidental, natural, or deliberate character. As the data on the incidents that occurred in 2015 show, “over 1.3 million fires were reported in the United States, resulting in over 18,000 civilian casualties and $14.3 billion in property damage” (Almirall et al., 2017, p.13). Statistically, monetary fire losses due to arson are claimed to be the most significant in the USA. According to De Haan and Icove (2012), the rate of arson constitutes approximately 24 cases for every 100,000 residents of the United States; the financial losses are estimated at approximately $16,000 per incident. Moreover, only 7% of recorded arson offenses lead to a “person being charged with arson and even a smaller percentage of those are convicted due to the lack of evidence” (O’Hagan and Calder, 2020, p. 17). Therefore, the proper investigation of the fires is the core of just law enforcement when detecting the causes of fire to establish compensation for recovery.
Errors in investigating practices that might be connected with the prior intrusion of fire fighting practices happen very often and lead to miscarriages of justice (Lentini, 2006). Fire debris analysis is the central process in the investigation of any type of fire that provides proof of theories behind the fire (Stauffer, Dolan, and Newman, 2008). The investigator’s responsibility is “not only to identify the origin and cause of the fire but to be prepared to defend those conclusions” in a logical and scientifically-based manner (De Haan and Icove, 2012, p. 15). Therefore it is important to identify and analyze the most common effects of fire fighting activities on the collection of evidence.
There are a number of most frequently occurring mistakes that subsequently lead to the destruction of evidence. Phago (2017) conducted an interview-based study with practicing first responders to identify what the most common problems with preserving fire scene evidence are. The findings indicate that first responders often fail to cordon off the scene of a crime with ribbons; sometimes, exhibits are not protected, might be tampered with, or contaminated (Phago, 2017). Also, first responders “do not keep a record of the incidents at the crime scene” and “fail to obtain witness statements” at the crime scene (Phago, 2017, p. 66). These common mistakes impose additional obstacles for the fire investigator, who might fail to provide enough evidence to convict a criminal.
Presence at a Fire Scene
Any fire is a significant threat to the safety and well-being of the member of the impacted community. Even a small-scale fire might expand and become uncontrollable when unmanaged or improperly tackled. To ensure an immediate and efficient reaction to these threats, a large group of people is usually present at a fire scene. These people include “representatives from law enforcement, fire, rescue, and emergency medical services; hazardous materials teams; utility company personnel; health and safety officers,” as well as witnesses, victims, and bystanders (Reno, 2000, p. 4). The fact that so many people are present at a fire scene imposes a danger of their tampering with evidence that might obscure the interpretation of it. Evidence might be misplaced, moved, taken away, or destroyed either unintentionally or on purpose. To eliminate any potential tampering with evidence, the firefighters are responsible for preserving the fire scene at all times unless it obstructs the procedures related to saving the lives of people.
An example of an effect of the presence of many people in a fire scene might be the case of the MGM Grand Hotel Fire in Las Vegas in 1980. The 23-story building of the MGM Grand Hotel contained a casino, restaurants, showrooms, and hotel premises (Best and Demers, 1982). A part of the facilities was occupied by hotel occupants, employees, and visitors, while another part was under reconstruction. Overall, many people, including construction workers, hotel guests, and workers, were moving around the fire scene. Additionally, fire analysis specialists and NFPA technical specialists, as well as medical personnel and firefighters, were involved in managing the fire and its aftermath. Thus, such a significant number of people at the fire point, as well as the need to rescue the victims, might have caused tampering with evidence.
Identification of Point of Fire Origin
One of the key elements in the work of a fire investigator when examining a fire scene is the source of ignition. Normally, the determination of the point of origin requires an investigator to observe the exterior of the building to identify the char patterns leading to open windows or doors (Brannigan, Bright and Jason, 1980). Any displacement or destruction of such patterns during the fire fighting process will obstruct the work of an investigator and diminish the chances to locate the origin of inflammation. Without such crucial information, it is difficult to proceed with the investigation and determine the real cause. It is possible that the rescue of the victims is made through windows; during this process, firefighters change the initial positioning of the opening parts and thus complicate the investigating procedure. Another example of obstructing the identification of the point of origin is firefighters refueling tools at the scene of the fire. This procedure may cause spills of gasoline that will complicate the collection of evidence relevant to the actual fire.
To eliminate the loss of such crucial information, firefighters are trained to memorize the first things they see at the scene. Indeed, according to Phillipps and McFadden (1996), firefighters are expected to create a mental picture of what they see once they arrive at a scene, as well as try to understand where and how the fire started. Often, it happens that the evidence is destroyed due to unavoidable processes of extinguishing. However, It sometimes occurs that firefighters destroy crucial items of evidence “needlessly, simply because they do not realize it is evidence” (Phillipps and McFadden, 1996, p. 7). Therefore, it is important for all the personnel of the first responders to the fire to be acquainted with the basics of fire investigation to prevent the destruction of evidence when it is avoidable.
The initial activities of first responders are coordinated by strict rules of conduct that are designed to provide investigators with all critical information about the fire. Activities of firefighters concerning evidence include observing and memorizing physical evidence placement and characteristics, recognizing and addressing threats to evidence, as well as protecting evidence (Reno, 2000). In addition, it is the duty of first responders to ensure that none of the individuals, including building owners or occupants, enter the building without justifiable reasons (Homeland Security, 2002). Thus, failure to abide by these rules of conduct might lead to damages of evidence and have to be avoided.
Extinguishing Activities
Naturally, fire is a complex process that spreads very fast and endangers the safety of people. Therefore, it needs to be extinguished as fast as possible and by the most effective means. It is evident that foam or water that is usually used by firefighters when stopping the flame may destroy or displace the items that might be valuable when reconstructing the fire scene and investigating the cause of inflammation. In such a manner, the investigators’ work is complicated by the need to identify “fire-suppression activities that may wash away or dilute potential evidence” (National Institute of Justice, 2009).
The presence of igniting fluids usually indicates that the fire is of intentional origin, in which case the investigator might treat the fire as a crime and press charges to convict a suspect. However, the water and foam might wash the igniting liquid residues and if no other evidence of arson is present, cause misinterpretation of the causes of fire by the investigator or impose concluding that no evidence was found. For example, in the case of the fire that happened in April 2015 in a mansion house occupied by National Trust, the flame was concentrated in the basement and was spreading to the higher floors. Immediately upon crews’ arrival, “the Crew Commander ordered a crew in breathing apparatus into the basement to tackle the fire with a hose reel jet” (Surrey Fire & Rescue Service, 2015, p. 2). As the fire spread and the initial volumes of water did not stop it, more hose reel jets were ordered to the basement.
Ultimately, the potential source of ignition might be destroyed by the water. Since the basement was initially recognized as the most impacted area, it is relevant to assume that the point of fire was located there. If it were arson and any igniting liquid residues had been left before the extinguishing activities, the amount of water used by firefighters would remove it and destroy the evidence. The activities undertaken by the crew to eliminate the fire in the building of National Trust in 2015 were unavoidable. In case the cause had not been identified, the destruction of evidence would have been unintentional.
Rescuing Activities
As it has been stated, the safety and life protection of the people involved in the crime scene is the priority at any fire. Therefore, when conducting salvage activities, fast movement of both might involve tampering with physical evidence. In addition, first responders might use tools that may destroy evidence. Additionally, such safety measures as turning off the electrical circuit protection or “moving knobs, switches, and controls on appliances and utilities” might lead to the destruction of evidence or obstruct its utilization for investigating purposes (National Institute of Justice, 2009, para. 12). Moreover, if a danger of significant life losses is imposed, intentional destruction of the building might be initiated to save lives. According to Dwyer (2018), the work with fire continuously exposes the professionals in this field to hazardous operations that require risk-taking to save lives.
Indeed, the case of Walbaum’s Supermarket fire that occurred in Brooklyn, NY, in 1979 resulted in significant firefighter fatalities. In the course of working with the fire, several firefighters fell under construction as the roof of the building collapsed. As the report states, “several holes were made into the wall to pull out injured survivors and victims” (Naum, 2018, para. 7). Such manipulations with the building structures were inevitable because they were justified by the people’s lives that needed to be immediately saved. However, the fact that the need for such destructive actions was required indicates that physical evidence might be destroyed in the course of fire fighting and rescuing victims.
Conclusion
The adequacy of fire investigation depends on the quality of work carried out by first responders. Even if the fire does not destroy all the evidence, there are other issues that might obstruct evidence safety. Due to such factors as the presence of people at a fire scene, extinguishing activities, and rescuing victims, firefighters often fail to preserve the physical evidence from tampering or destruction. Thus, the work of fire investigators is complicated due to the nature of the investigated events and the extinguishing and rescuing activities that are often destructive to evidence. It is important to address these issues when improving the work of fire crews.
Reference List
Amirall, J. et al. (2017) Forensic science assessments: a quality and gap analysis. Web.
Brannigan, F. L., Bright, R. G. and Jason, N. H. (1980) Fire investigation handbook. Washington: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards.
Best, R. and Demers, D. P. (1982) Investigation report on the MGM Grand Hotel fire. Web.
De Haan, J. H. and Icove, D. J. (2012). Kirk’s fire investigation. 7th edn. New Jersey: Pearson.
Dwyer, R. (2018) ‘Fire officer leadership strategies for cost management’,School of Management Publications, 135. Web.
Homeland Security (2002) Arson detection for the first responders. Web.
Lentini, J.J. (2006) Scientific protocols for fire investigation. 2nd edn. Florida: CRC Press.
National Institute of Justice (2009) A guide for investigating fire and arson. Web.
Naum, C. J. (2018) The Waldbaum fire and collapse: FDNY 1978-2019 honor, remembrance, learning’s 41st anniversary. Web.
O’Hagan A. and Calder, R. (2020) ‘DNA and fingerprint recovery from an arson scene’, Forensic Research and Criminology International Journal, 8(1), pp. 15-29.
Phago, R. J. (2017) Evaluation of the role of the first responder at the crime scene. Web.
Phillipps, C. C. and McFadden, D. A. (1996) Investigating the fireground. 2nd edn. Tulsa: PennWell Publishing Group.
Reno, J. et al. (2000) Fire and arson scene evidence: a guide for public safety personnel. National Institute of Justice.
Stauffer, E., Dolan, J. A. and Newman, R. (2008) Fire debris analysis. 1st edn. Massachusetts: Academic Press.
Surrey Fire & Rescue Service (2015) Report of fire. Web.