The Michigan Cases

The Michigan Cases and Their Impact on Fire Investigation

James R Thomas FSCN 306 6980 Professor Avato 16 November 2008

The Michigan Cases Abstract

ii

In the U.S. Supreme Court cases of Michigan v. Tyler and Michigan v. Clifford, the high court ruled on the difference between reasonable and unreasonable searches for a fire scene. The two cases both resulted in suppression of key evidence and the acquittal of both parties involved in the fires at their respective structures. The legal right to be on the property was defined by these cases as well as what is required to continue investigations. Although local policies might dictate different practices than the ones presented during these cases, the policies cannot be in violation of the judgment of the high court in the matters of unreasonable search and seizure. Both cases will be examined to determine the impact the cases had on the authority of professionals to conduct a fire origin and cause investigation

The Michigan Cases The Michigan Cases and Their Impact on Fire Investigation

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution ensures the right of a citizen to their privacy, which the Fourteenth guarantees due process of law. More specifically, the Fourth prevents law enforcement and other agencies such as fire departments from unreasonable search and seizure. The Fourteenth, although more commonly asserted with voting rights and the cases of Dred Scott v. Sandford and Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, also calls for due process to be guaranteed to every citizen. The Fourth Amendment further states that agencies must have a warrant that describes the particular place to be searched or the items to be seized. This was modified in Murray v. United States, where the high court ruled that evidence found during an illegal search may be admissible if authorities enter again with a warrant which is not related to the illegal search but would have been used if a two-part test for the independent source is satisfied (Hogan, 2000, p. 27). During the course of a fire, however, the law is bent somewhat to allow fire and rescue services the right to enter a structure if they believe a fire is present or lives are at risk. It is when investigators begin their assessment of the cause of the fire that the law was rather unclear as to the difference between initial investigation, which does not require a warrant, and investigations after participating parties have secured and left the scene. In the cases of Michigan v. Tyler and Michigan v. Clifford, the U. S. Supreme Court provided guidelines for the legal basis for the post-fire presence of investigators. The purpose of this paper is to examine these cases to determine their effect on arson investigations and the rights of citizens to protection from unreasonable search and seizures.

The Michigan Cases Michigan v. Tyler

In 1978, the U. S. Supreme court first began to define what unreasonable search and seizure meant as it pertains to fire and arson investigations. Michigan v. Tyler stemmed from a fire at a furniture store that occurred on January 21, 1970, just after midnight of the preceding day. Investigating officials entered the building just as the fire was extinguished and began their preliminary investigation. They found evidence of plastic fuel cans, but little else due to the residual smoke, steam, and the fact that it was still dark at the scene. They left and returned early that morning to conduct a more thorough investigation, during which they found further evidence of arson. Three investigations that occurred on the 4th, 7th, and 25th days following, however, caused some question in the difference between what was found during the exigent circumstances on the day of the fire and those of the days and weeks following. The evidence found on the days after the event was suppressed because it was determined by the court that investigators did not have the legal right to conduct an investigation without a warrant. Although evidence was found in the first investigation of the night of the fire that indicated arson, it was not until almost a month later that authorities officially considered the cause of the fire to be arson. Until that point, the Supreme Court still emphasized that an administrative warrant was necessary for entry after the investigations that occurred on the day of the crime. Justice Stevens dissented from the court on part II of the decision, in which he wrote that more proof than what is required for administrative searches should be used to gain entry, and therefore he seemed to think that criminal search warrants are more appropriate. However, the high court as a whole ruled that, at a minimum, administrative warrants are required to continue the investigation until arson is determined, and at that time criminal search warrants would be needed for any further entry.

The Michigan Cases Michigan v. Clifford

The case of Michigan v. Clifford amplified the decision of Michigan v. Tyler to include where the search may continue after determination of cause. This fire occurred in the early morning hours of January 11, 1984 in a private home. In this case, the firefighters found evidence of arson (a Coleman fuel can) while overhauling the basement area. Believing this can to be a possible source of ignition, it was left outside the building before the firefighters left the scene. Investigators did not arrive on the scene until many hours after the fire department departed. At this point, an insurance cleanup crew was on the scene pumping firefighting water out of the basement area. A search of the basement revealed more Coleman fuel cans and a timer attached to a crock pot that was set to approximately the time of the fire. After seeing this evidence, investigators began to search the entire house, including floors that were not too affected by the fire and had a little smoke damage. There, they found evidence that the occupants had removed personal items and other goods while substituting them with cheaper goods that indicated typical premeditated arson actions by homeowners (DeHaan, 2007, p. 609). Evidence was suppressed in subsequent examinations of the scene due to the nature of where the investigators had a legal right to conduct the investigation on the property. In Michigan v. Tyler, pictures and personal goods found during the exhaustive search of the remainder of the residence revealed many clues that pointed to arson by the homeowners. However, the police and arson investigators had no right to search the rest of the house because the limitations on investigating arson crimes limit them to the immediate area surrounding the location of possible ignition. According to Part I of the Courts opinion, the Arson Division of the Detroit Fire Department sanctioned such searches as long as the owner was not present, the premises were open to trespass, and the search occurred within a reasonable time of the fire (Michigan v.

The Michigan Cases

Clifford, 1984). This local policy differentiated from the Michigan v. Tyler decision and how it delineated what was considered lawful entry to a fire scene and violated their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights just as it did in the previous case. Consent or an administrative warrant would have been necessary for the mid-day search, and further searches into the home would have required a criminal search warrant. Conclusion The cases of Michigan v. Tyler and Michigan v. Clifford should be viewed by the fire investigating community as rulings that protect citizens rights. Although they might limit the evidence that would be collected immediately following a fire, these Supreme Court rulings simply provide more guidance for a due process. Investigators are still granted a reasonable time in which to conduct their business as well as leniency as to where they can look for clues to the cause of a fire. They still have the right to obtain evidence either by line of sight or through consent, and if necessary, through a warrant. However, as in the Michigan v. Tyler case, one must keep in mind that the property of individuals or a business may still be used for that purpose once the fire is out. Therefore, a certain amount of respect must be given for the occupants until evidence points otherwise. Hogan (2000) recommends that, in the case that arson is suspected, a criminal search warrant should be obtained immediately (p. 65). It is unclear as to whether this would have helped the investigators in the Michigan v. Clifford case, but it surely would have aided in preventing the Michigan v. Tyler case from being overturned. Further, even though investigators may have consent to a search without a warrant, it seems as though having the warrant would protect the evidence from being thrown out of the courts and aid in a conviction if the case is indeed arson. Michigan v. Clifford also points out vulnerabilities in local jurisdictions if their policies differ from those of state or national law. Clearly, it is in the best interest of

The Michigan Cases

investigators to know what local, state, and national laws govern their actions and stay up to date on any changes in order to protect their investigations.

The Michigan Cases References DeHaan, J. (2007). Kirks Fire Investigation. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.

Hogan, L. (2000). Legal aspects of the fire service. (3rd ed.) Frederick, MD: Amlex, Inc. Michigan v. Clifford, 464 U.S. 287. (1984). Retrieved on 1 November, 2008, from LexisNexis database. Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499. (1978). Retrieved on 1 November, 2008, from LexisNexis database. Murray v. United States, 369 U.S. 828. (1962). Retrieved on 1 November, 2008, from LexisNexis database.