Introduction
In fire investigation, an investigator is the most important person and whose role is centered on the entire process of fire investigation. The process is aimed at preventing another incident from occurring due to similar causes. Therefore, the recommendations made by the investigator are critical in preventing the recurrence of such incidences. If the investigator determines that the fire was caused by a failure of an appliance that appeared to be defective and that there was similarly a potential indication that other comparable appliances may be at risk of causing another fire, it is, in my opinion, to assert that the investigator has a legal right to take this evidence for future examination. The major reasons to support this opinion include the legal roles of the investigator to report, protect, and act ethically with respect to the prevention of future fire incidences. This paper form an argument based on the suggested points to support the opinion herein.
Main argument
As noted earlier, a fire investigator is the most important person in the process of fire investigation and the law requires an investigator to adhere to the best work practices throughout the process. An investigator is working on behalf of an agency and findings must be reported according to the agency policies and required practices. Since the investigator is bound to these policies, it is illegal to hold such findings. The reporting policy clearly defines that an investigator should collect detailed fire information, integrate, and disseminate it through state and national databases (US Department of Justice 36). Failure to report any important information knowingly is an offense subject to disciplinary action. The work of an investigator is to find the cause of the fire to help in future plans which the investigator in our case has done and failure to give the correct information will affect these future plans.
Furthermore, failing to report this evidence for future examination underscores the investigator in the obligation to protect the public in case of future fire occurrences. In a fire incident, the jurisdiction of the fire area is turned to the investigator and retained until all information is collected. It is only within this period that the evidence is not destroyed meaning that the investigator is the only one to determine how future prevention plans could be made since they are based on the evidence of the cause. This means that the legal responsibility of the investigator does not only revolve around that incidence but also in the future similar incidences. This is confirmed by Pedrola who says that the only way to prevent future losses from fire and even prosecute arsonists successfully is by knowing exactly how and what started a fire (19).
The legality of the practices of fire investigators can be observed from the continued interest of the national and state justice bodies as well as the many court cases that directly or indirectly question their practices. In response to poor investigations, Carter decided that the only way to protect the organization, as well as the members, is by setting down the ways in which to do business in order for the personnel to work to a common denominator, same rules and consistent procedures (74). Comeau observed the reason Oregon State attorneys gave for few prosecutions and the evidence produced by fire agencies from fire scenes. Basically, given that many cases depended on circumstantial evidence, the office needed to strengthen its prosecution with concrete evidence such that it would not be thrown out in the trial. The incompetency during investigation creates question on the strength of cases and even doubts whether some can stand in a court (1). Provided the incompetence of fire investigators is deemed a legal concern, I wonder how submission of evidence cannot be the first legal priority.
Furthermore, the law requires all state works including fire investigators to observe work ethics and moral principles. It is unethical for the investigator to hold evidence whereas such evidence is of great importance for the security of the people and properties. Keeping the evidence with him will neither benefit him nor the victims, but will drawback the future initiatives to prevent fire incidences. The most ethical behavior is to forward the evidence and if possible assist in further investigation despite any perceived negative effect. Whether it is the owner who will loose the appliance or the investigator who will not get any promise given, the magnitude of another fire due to such negligence cannot be compared. Moreover, the issue does not only sound as a question of legality, but rather as a moral obligation for the investigator.
Conclusion
The investigator has legal obligation to report the evidence of the perceived faulty appliances to the relevant authorities. The agency policies which are respected by the law clearly define this obligation in terms future plans to prevent such an occurrence. It is also a legal responsibility for the investigator to engage in protecting the people and their properties. Concern from legal bodies and many cases reinforce the legality of this obligation. Work ethics and moral principles justify the need to present the evidence despite any perceived weakness.
Works Cited
Carter, Harry. “The good leader must help to shape the organization”. NFPA Journal, 2001: 74.
Comeau, Ed. “Working against arson”. 2001. Web.
Pedrola, Josep. “Managing fire investigation scenes”. 2002. Web.
US Department of Justice. “Fire and arson scene evidence: a guide for public safety personnel”. 2000. Web.