BY BRETT MARTINEZ
We in the fire service do many things well, especially identifying failures in our industry. In most cases when we identify a failure, we do not move to cover it up or sweep it under the rug. Instead, we act swiftly to address the issue and then disseminate our findings through after-action reports, lessons learned, and near-miss situation analysis. We then work to improve our deficiencies through new technology, better training, and national standards. We do this because we know that by correcting our flaws, we will help to save lives everywhere.
Sadly, as an industry, we have not been unified on one issue that affects us. That is committing to preventing and detecting firefighters who are inclined to set fires or, simply, firefighters- turned-arsonists. Fortunately, this is not an issue of epidemic proportion in our industry. However, it has been enough of an issue so that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI); the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF); and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) were prompted to research and publish a national study on the issue. These efforts, although useful to investigators, have focused on apprehension, not prevention.
There has also been enough media coverage over the years to foster an atmosphere of doubt and concern relative to the possible involvement of fire service personnel in serial arson cases. From personal experience, I can tell you that one of the categories of criminal offenders investigators first consider during a serial arson case is a firefighter who may have crossed over to the dark side. That is how serial arson offenders are perceived. Just as in child molestation cases where investigators are trained to look “close to home,” the same practice has begun in arson investigations as well. But unlike most of the cases involving violence against children, where the majority of offenders are relatives or someone the child knows, there are no studies that show that firefighters commit the majority of serial arson cases. I will discuss this misperception in greater detail later.
PERCEPTION CHANGING
Firefighters who become arsonists are not a new phenomenon, but, until recently, the problem was swept under the rug or covered up primarily for fear of embarrassment. That is no longer the case for most fire service agencies. With the advent of global media coverage, a select few cannot cover up a community under attack. Furthermore, national law enforcement and national fire service officials consider this threat unacceptable to the nation. Most of the firefighters-turned-arsonists efforts have focused on the motives, profiling, and tracking of these criminal offenders. To date, only three programs designed to prevent firefighters from becoming arsonists have gained national recognition.
Note: I write this article knowing that some readers may consider this subject taboo. One major industry publisher even told me, “We do not discuss this topic.” This is extremely disheartening because, as with any disease, firefighter arson must first be identified and confronted to be treated and eradicated.
I am very proud of my industry and fellow firefighters. It has always been difficult to explain to nonfirefighters the bond between firefighters who have made the push down that hot and dark hallway. I take it personally when someone attempts to destroy that bond. In addition, when investigating an arson case, it is always sad to hear someone in the general public or law enforcement state, “It is probably a firefighter who had nothing better to do.” Sadly, I have heard this comment during more than one serial investigation.
REASONS TO ACT
The primary reason for a firefighter arson prevention program is that fire is one of the greatest threats to an individual or a community. The potential for loss of life and property is great, especially when multiple firesetter threats exist. Anyone who has lived in a community terrorized by a serial arsonist will confirm that a state of fear grows throughout the community and spreads like a plague. If it is allowed to continue and remain unresolved, the population begins to lose faith in the local government’s ability to protect its citizens from threats. When their confidence is eroded, individuals begin to take matters into their own hands, creating additional problems.
The effects on local fire departments under siege by serial arsonists are also great. The potential for accidents and injuries to personnel increases with every event. Municipal expenses also become a factor; there is a need to allocate additional funding for damaged and worn out equipment and allocating tremendous resources, such as having undercover units, helicopters, K9 units, detectives, and fire marshals working all hours of the day on the case. All this places a great financial burden on all public safety agencies.
Now, factor in that the arsonist is a firefighter, and, suddenly, all the negative attention will focus like a laser on the fire department where that firefighter is a member. To keep the storyline going, the media begin to focus on every aspect of the case, the fire suppression operation, and the overall leadership of the department. Questions focus on why the fire department did not know—or, did they know? The questions continue: Who knew, and how long did they know? How could this criminal have been allowed to enter the ranks? Was there a cover-up? The rumors and speculation continue until the next major media story breaks or the media have their pound of flesh.
Along the way, careers beyond the offender’s can be ruined. The negative publicity is only the beginning. Funding and community support will diminish, which will create more economic problems within the service. Department morale plummets to new lows. Recruitment is stifled, and indecision reigns supreme. In addition, the fire departments in the area also suffer because of their association with the department in question. Regaining the public’s trust will be extremely difficult. For those who have not been directly involved in a firefighter-turned-arsonist case, this may sound like some plot for a bad movie. Sadly, all the negative aftermaths discussed here are based on events from actual cases. It is not necessary to take my word. Simply ask any retired chief officer who has had to deal with one of these offenders in their department.
The only chance for a successful damage control operation is for the fire service to confront the problem head-on and work toward solving the problem early instead of waiting and hoping that what is suspected is not true. Fire department administration and chief officers must stress that these individuals are unique and do not represent the majority of the dedicated and hard-working members of the fire service. These offenders stopped being public servants the moment they chose to threaten all the dedicated firefighters and the community they had sworn to serve. These lone and troubled individuals are not public servants but public menaces, who will be dealt with in the harshest terms possible.
The reason for such swift damage control goes to the heart of the ideals on which this nation was founded. Very few government entities overrule the public’s constitutional rights of privacy and private ownership. The fire suppression service is a government entity that can kick down your door and enter your residence without your permission. The fire service is given this superseding authority for the greater good of protecting life and property for all. The general public places its faith and trust in the fire service not to abuse this privileged status. This is a sacred public trust; when an action of an individual within the fire services erodes that trust, the entire service is adversely affected.
As mentioned earlier, to my knowledge, there are no reports, studies, or statistical data that identify firefighters as the largest group of serial arsonists; but, you would not know this from the media coverage. When such cases are publicized, consider the following: The public reaction will depend on the public trust that the fire service has earned. When someone breaks that trust, the media will cover it with fervor. This is no different from a law enforcement officer’s breaking the law or a member of the medical professional acting unethically. Public servants will always be judged by a higher standard; that will not change. The second fact driving this misperception is that firefighters who turn into arsonists are easy to capture once you know what to look for. Compare these facts with the national average for arson arrests, which is around 15 percent, and it is easy to see how the intense media coverage will make it appear as though firefighters are the only ones committing arson. This is far from the truth and should be pointed out when dealing with the media.
WHO ARE THESE OFFENDERS?
The firefighter-turned-arsonist (FF/A) will span the service ranks. Documented cases show that FF/As included paid, volunteer, structural, and wildland professionals. Line officers and chiefs also have been arrested for arson.
Many chief and executive officers who have had an FF/A in their ranks, according to researchers, are reluctant at first to act on their suspicions for many reasons.1 Unfortunately, this is one of the worst approaches to take. This is of greatest concern because of the issue of the escalation of violence when dealing with serial offenders, which describes most FF/As. When allowed to continue unchecked, most multiple firesetters, such as the FF/A, usually set a series of fires that begin as small incidents or mischief-type fire incidents that then escalate to larger and more serious offenses. Based on this firesetting history, a pattern can be identified and tracked. The pattern may be the first indication that you are dealing with an FF/A. The pattern and tracking are the best tools for focusing the investigation at suspects. (This article does not focus on the investigation of the FF/A and does not discuss the sensitive techniques for tracking and profiling.) It is safe to say that when employed properly, these tracking techniques have helped to curb the FF/A events.
Even fire investigators are not immune to the dark side. Although less probable arson candidates, fire investigators have become as infamous as firesetters as the FF/As. Two examples include the case of a senior investigator in California and an accelerant detection canine handler in New York State.2
TOOLS FOR ERADICATING THE PROBLEM
The three best tools for preventing this problem are screening, testing, and prevention through education.
Screening
This tool is the least expensive and will lead to the quickest results. Problems can be identified and addressed early, before any large investment is made in the new candidate’s career. Regardless of the type of fire department (paid, volunteer, or combination), screening should be conducted to vet for any past criminal activity and previous firesetting activity. The methods of screening will vary with the jurisdiction. Some of the most successful methods are described below.
•In 2000 the State of South Carolina passed laws to address the vetting of new recruits. Chapter 80, section 40-80-20 requires that any prospective firefighter (paid or volunteer) undergo a criminal records check conducted by a law enforcement agency. Local law enforcement agencies having jurisdiction usually conduct the screening, but state law enforcement agencies may do it as well.
• In New York State, the law (cited as Chapter 423 of the General Municipal Law) requires that the County Sheriff’s office conduct a screening of all prospective volunteer firefighters for arson convictions within the state of New York.3 Although developed with good intentions, this law did not take into account two important issues. The first is the plea bargaining capability of the court system. When prosecutors reduce an arson charge (which was a felony charge only in New York State) to some other lesser charge, they would do so to get the offender to plead guilty. This was seen as a win/win for both sides. The prosecutor got the conviction, and the guilty offender got a reduced sentence. The only problem was that in New York State, Chapter 423 only allowed for the reporting of arson and not the lesser crime. To correct this flaw, the nonfelony count of arson fire was created in the State’s criminal code to ensure that all FF/A offenders would be tagged so that the arson would be allowed in a background check. The second flaw in the New York State law is that it addresses only volunteer firefighters. To date, this issue has not been addressed, although most paid fire departments in the state do criminal background checks at the municipal level.
• In Pennsylvania, the State Police created the “Hero to Zero—Firefighter Arsonist Program.” It requires that all recruit firefighters who attend the “Hero to Zero” program register with the Pennsylvania Association of Arson Investigators (PAAI) to measure the success of the program statewide.
Although all these programs have been successful in reducing the offender rate within the individual states, they have been hit-and-miss nationally. In some cases, the offenders’ criminal records will not transfer beyond the borders of the offenders’ previous state residence. One way to improve this tracking within the United States would be to incorporate a national tracking of convicted firefighter-turned-arsonists through programs such as the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Managing Arson through Criminal History (MATCH) Act of 2007 (H.R. 1759). This program was originally introduced in the first session of the 110th Congress. It was to do the following:
- To establish guidelines and incentives for States to establish arsonist registries and to require the Attorney General to establish a national arsonist registry and notification program, and for other purposes.
Unfortunately, the MATCH act did not become law. This should not discourage us. Fire service and law enforcement industry leaders must work together to help produce a viable future law. Screening for current and potential future arsonists is the best way to prevent offenders from joining the ranks, but it is not the only system available to help limit exposure to FF/A offenders.
Predicting and Testing
As the screening process helps to prevent known offenders from joining our ranks, predicting through testing helps identify potential future FF/A offenders. For many years, similar testing has been done for career personnel in law enforcement and national security titles. These testing methods have been very successful when incorporated with other screening methods (such as psychological evaluations). The state of South Carolina, along with the Southern Group of State Foresters, has developed a screening test program that is also administered to all prospective firefighters. A written test is given to evaluate for prospective arsonist traits. The test is based on a scoring system similar to that developed for juvenile firesetting intervention programs.4 This program is a good starting point to identify and further evaluate when indicators deem it necessary.
To this point, the screening and testing tools discussed will help prevent known criminal offenders from joining the fire service ranks as well as evaluate them for borderline or potential serial arsonist traits. An additional method is needed to address the issue of the candidate least likely to be an FF/A. This tool will help to eliminate the offender who no one could ever believe would be an arsonist. These include individuals who come from “good stock,” were highly motivated, and appear to be a great asset to the department. They are the action-oriented, motive-based offenders who believe that setting a fire is not a bad thing or is good for training. To help prevent these firefighters from going down the path of an arsonist, a different approach is necessary.
As with most of the fire prevention programs we conduct, the benefits of reducing the number of this type of FF/A will not be immediately realized. A good example of this would be the potential of fatal fire incidents in jurisdictions where smoke detection distribution programs are occurring. The reason these individuals will not be screened out, and probably should not be, are related. Historically, most of these types of offenders set fires because they were misguided or misinformed. This type of individual is so involved with the department that the majority of personnel believe it would be impossible for this asset to be a suspect. These individuals have no criminal background, except for setting fires so that they would “see some action” and were not considered law breakers or deviants. These potential offenders need to be reminded that the wrong actions can have tragic consequences.
Prevention Through Education
In 1993 the Suffolk County (NY) Police Arson Squad and the Suffolk County (NY) Fire Marshal’s Office began developing a program to discourage nonoffenders from any temptation in the future. The program, known as “Firefighter Turned Arsonist,” was developed as a lecture and is followed by a short video which discusses historical events. This presentation, which started in 1994, is mandatory for all county firefighter recruit classes. The program is designed to point out the consequences of setting fires—from threatening the lives and safety of fellow firefighters to the disgrace brought to the individual, his family, and the fire department, as well as the financial strain a criminal prosecution will put on the offender. And, there is the probability of incarceration. Uniformed fire investigators conduct the presentation; some have their badge, handcuffs, and weapon visible during the presentation. This is not done to intimidate but to stress the seriousness of the subject and the commitment to preventing this crime. The Arson Squad detective enforces the penalties and hardship caused by anyone who turns to arson and is very clear in stating that the County of Suffolk will not condone these actions and will make every effort to investigate, arrest, and prosecute offenders involved in these criminal acts. The program has been very successful in lowering the incidence of FF/A related to this type of potential offender.
The potential will always exist for firefighters to turn toward arson; the goal here is to discourage, prevent, and interdict as many as possible. When employed properly, all these tools will help limit our exposure to this crime and help to maintain the public’s trust in our industry.
Endnotes
1. As per the Special Agent Timothy G. Huff, FBI Quantico, report Fire-Setting Fire Fighters: Arsonists in the Fire Department – Identification and Prevention (1994). The research disclosed some interesting phenomena regarding the departments’ chief officers.
2. John Orr, a fire investigator in Glendale, California, was arrested and convicted of arson and murder charges in the 1990s. He is believed to have set hundreds of fires during his 20-year career with the fire department. In the mid-1990s, a firefighter who had joined an arson task force in upstate New York and later trained an accelerant detection canine was arrested for setting fires in his task force’s jurisdiction. All the fires he set were accelerated with flammable liquids found by his canine.
3. U.S. Fire Administration Technical Report Series, Special Report Firefighter Arson, USFA TR-141, January 2003.
4. Arson Screening and Prediction System (ASAP), Southern Group of State Foresters, 2000.
BRETT M. MARTINEZhas been with the fire service since 1983 as a member of the Hauppauge (NY) Fire Department and a fire marshal for the Suffolk County (NY) Fire Rescue and Emergency Services. He has an associate degree in fire science from Suffolk County Community College. He is a New York-certified level II fire investigator, level I instructor, and peace officer and has been an ATF-certified accelerant detection canine handler since 1991. He is a member of the U.S. Attorney’s Anti-Terrorist Advisory Council (ATAC) and the coordinator of the Suffolk County Arson Task Force. He is the author of Multiple Fire Setters: The Process of Tracking and Identification (Fire Engineering, 2002).
