Wildland Fire Investigation, FI–210 Origin and Cause Determination

• Does the subject have a reasonable expectation of privacy
• Is the search reasonable What is “reasonable”
• What is “reasonable” is defined by the courts in their rulings.
These rulings are called “case law.” Exclusionary Rule
• “Excluded” means that that evidence cannot be used in civil or criminal court
Mapp v. Ohio, 1961
4-6 Fire Investigation – Seizure of Evidence
Any time you decide to seize evidence you must ask yourself two questions. First, can the
individual possessing the evidence be expected to exercise his right of privacy In other words, has he
done anything which demonstrates that expectation, such as closing a door, locking a gate, putting up
fences, or posting No Trespassing signs And second, is the expectation of privacy one which society is
prepared to grant as reasonable
Reasonable expectation of privacy
• Does the individual actually expect privacy If so,
• Is the expectation of privacy one which society is prepared to grant as reasonable Katz v.
US, 1967
• Locked gates and “No Trespassing” signs on an “open field” do not prevent entry by police.
(Open Fields) Oliver
v. US
• Observation of marijuana from the air, even when surrounded by a high fence, is admissible.
(Plain View) CA v.
Ciraolo
• Evidence discarded by the subject is subject to examination by police
(Abandonment) CA v. Greenwood, 1988 4-7 Fire Investigation – Public Property
Generally, evidence found at wildland fire scenes on federal, state, or local government lands
can be seized without a warrant.
Certain situations, however, may require you to obtain a search warrant. Any time you’re in
doubt, consult your agency or cooperating law-enforcement officials.