MS: Fire scene search is exigency and plain view

A fire scene search is exigent circumstances, and what is found in plain view may be seized. King v. State, 987 So. 2d 490 (Miss. App. 2008):

P14. Since the firefighters in the present case were responding to an emergency situation, they did not require a warrant to enter King’s home. Furthermore, testimony by Johnson established that the movement of furniture and other debris was required to properly search for hot spots. If firefighters miss a hot spot, there is a danger that the house could reignite, creating yet another emergency. There is no evidence that the firefighters in this case went on a fishing expedition to satisfy their curiosity or otherwise did more than necessary to search for hot spots. “In searching solely to ascertain the cause [of a fire], firemen customarily must remove rubble or search other areas where the cause of fires is likely to be found. An object that comes into view during such a search may be preserved without a warrant.” Michigan v. Clifford, 464 U.S. 287, 295 n.6, 104 S. Ct. 641, 78 L. Ed. 2d 477 (1984).

P15. King claims that “the criminal activity that firefighters were looking for was evidence of the possession of illegal drugs” and that “Johnson’s own testimony indicated that he was indeed looking for evidence of other criminal activity (drugs) not related to the fire ….” However, Johnson testified that firefighters are trained “to recognize certain objects that may be used for illegal activities for our safety and anybody elses [sic] safety that enters that structure.” Nowhere in Johnson’s testimony did he indicate that he entered King’s home to look for evidence of drugs. It is logical that firefighters would seize any drugs or other objects that might be a danger to the public. Furthermore, it is clear that if an object’s criminal nature is readily apparent, it may be seized in such situations if the object is in plain view. Anderson v. State, 864 So. 2d 948, 950 (P8) (Miss. Ct. App. 2003); United States v. Green, 474 F.2d 1385, 1389 (5th Cir. 1973); United States v. Loos, 165 F.3d 504, 506 (7th Cir. 1998); United States v. Finnigin, 113 F.3d 1182, 1186 (10th Cir. 1997). Quite simply, any criminal items that Johnson found in plain view were admissible without a warrant.

Tennessee city court judges can issue search warrants. State v. Ford, 2008 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 565 (May 7, 2008).*

Under Texas’ bizarre statutes permitting JPs to issue search warrants when there is no lawyer in rural counties, this warrant for blood in a DUI was valid. Muniz v. State, 264 S.W.3d 392 (Tex. App.—Houston (1st Dist.) 2008).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.