Replies

Regardless of how the media is overblowing his gun collection, the real issue here is the homeowner's refusal to leave the premises and his threat to the Fire Chief. If he had left when he was told to by the Fire Chief

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Please show me :
1. Anything in the news article indicating that the Fire Chief had a warrant. -or-
2. Any Amendment to the Constitution that overrides the one above for Fire Chiefs.

Thanks.

Only if you show me anything that indicates the Fire Chief is searching and/or seizing anything, whether reasonable or unreasonable. The amendment protects citizens against "unreasonable" (don't overlook that word being included) searches and seizures. The Fire Chief isn't searching or seizing anything, merely trying to put out a fire without anyone getting hurt. But even if you include the fire as "property" being seized, is that "unreasonable"?

2. Any Amendment to the Constitution that overrides the one above for Fire Chiefs.

Courts have consistently held that warrants are not necessary for government personnel to enter a person's property under certain exigent circumstances. Generally, a fire would certainly qualify as such.

On the other hand, I'm also curious as to what evidence of a fire existed outside the building at the time the firefighters arrived. In the early stages of a chimney fire, seconds count. The inside of a chimney which is open at both top and bottom represents near-ideal combustion conditions, and a fire in such an environment can very quickly get hot enough to overcome the thermal resistance of the chimney materials (either causing the chimney to fail, or causing the outside to get hot enough to ignite something nearby).

On the other hand, the fire fighters probably didn't arrive at such an extremely time-critical moment (from what I understand, the firehouse could have been right next door, the men waiting in the truck when the fire started, and the homeowner's front door already open to let them in when they arrived, and they still likely wouldn't have been fast enough to stop the fire from spreading). From what I understand, there were basically three possible scenarios when the firefighters arrived:

The fire had already obviously spread, in which case severe damage to the structure would be inevitable.
The fire was already under control, and no damage to the structure beyond a thin coating of wood smoke to the walls, ceilings, and exposed items and furnishings, would occur.
The fire was spread, but its spread was not apparent. In this case, significant damage to the structure would likely be necessary to get at and extinguish the fire; in this scenario the exact time the firemen arrive probably matters least, since the longer they spend before looking for the fire, the more obvious the fire is going to be once they do start looking (and thus the sooner they can find and extinguish it).

From later posts, my impression of your position is this...the fire dept forcing anyone to leave their home without a warrant issued is an unreasonable seizure.

I can understand that. My view, however, is that since time is of the essence during a fire, a warrant cannot reasonably be had. Because a fire (smoke inhalation can be quite life threatening) is an emergency situation I do not feel it is unreasonable for a person to be temporarily seized without a warrant.

Can "emergency situation" be abused? Certainly. I will tell you that I thought the whole, "Oooh, there are a few drops of blood at OJ's house, someone must be DYING inside" crap to enter his residence was utterly unconstitutional.

Part of my concern with placing limits upon fire dept personnel is that hordes of relatives will sue the dept insisting that their freedom loving relative was surely mentally deficient because of the smoke inhaled and leaving such a deficient person was tantamount to murder.