Arsonist Is Paying for Crime—Billed For Fire Fighting, Investigation Costs
Light sentences given to arsonists are frustrating to those who are dedicated to curbing what has been described as “the fastest growing crime” in the United States. In Los Angeles, however, a sentence imposed on an arsonist included an unusual condition. He was required to reimburse the city for the costs of fighting the fire and the expenses of the arson investigation.
The story behind this fire suggests parallels to the movie, “Save the Tiger.” In fact, the defendant made a voluntary statement regarding the similarities between the two.
The defendant, Andrew Nathan, is the president and owner of a garment manufacturing business, Alanco Industries, on South Los Angeles St. in downtown Los Angeles.
Nathan came to Los Angeles 10 years ago and prospered as a contractor producing garments for other clothing manufacturers. The annual dollar volume for his business was $1.5 million and the company employed 80 to 120 persons. In 1974, Nathan was the victim of a fraud perpetrated by his exsales manager, and the result was a $200,000 loss.
Nathan began to encounter further difficulties when he attempted to manufacture and market his own line of merchandise. As a result of this unsuccessful undertaking, he acquired unsalable raw material and stock worth approximately $450,000, which was stored in a warehouse on South Los Angeles St.
Occupants report fire
On Friday, May 13, 1977, the Los Angeles Fire Department received a call at 2:57 a.m., reporting a fire at the warehouse. The building was an old five-story, commercial structure, approximately 150 X 150 feet. Alanco’s warehouse was on the fourth floor. Two artists occupied the fifth floor as both a residence and art studio.
During the evening prior to the fire, Alanco’s sales manager let four persons into the building. Between the time of entry and the time of the alarm, those persons arranged trails throughout the premises, distributed 6 gallons of gasoline, and turned off one of the two sprinkler systems.
Los Angeles City Fire Dept, photos
During this time, they literally made themselves at home by drinking beer and smoking cigarettes, all within a small area so as not to cause any unnecessary noise by knocking something over in the dark. Apparently, the arsonists were unaware of the two people occupying the floor above them. It was these two persons on the fifth floor who smelled smoke and telephoned the fire department before escaping from the building.
Oversight by arsonists
The fire resulted in structural and contents damage of about $1.5 million and indirect losses (unemployment, loss of revenue, etc.) in excess of $1 million. These figures included an estimated loss of $400,000 to Alanco’s stock and merchandise, $40,000 to the building, and $350,000 loss to other businesses in the building.
Ironically, the damage to the building and its contents would have been far greater had it not been for an oversight by the arsonists. They had not completely turned off the one sprinkler valve they attempted to deactivate. There was still approximately one full turn left!
This, in combination with the sprinkler riser that had not been tampered with, kept the fire from spreading to areas other than those in which the gasoline had been distributed. Even though the sprinklers held the fire in check, it took 65 fire fighters one hour to extinguish the blaze and another three to four hours for mop-up operations.
A few days after the fire, Nathan filed an insurance claim for $308,000 and received approximately $80,000 from his insurance company for the salvageable stock.
Conspiracy uncovered
During the initial investigation, Los Angeles Fire Department arson investigators found physical evidence of an obviously incendiary fire. In the joint investigation conducted by the district attorney’s office and the arson unit, it was determined that Nathan had conspired with his sales manager, Jeffry M. Miller, and others to set fire to his inventory for the purpose of recovering losses through his insurance company.
In July 1977, several Alanco employees took polygraph examinations. Miller failed his examination and when confronted with the results, he made a confession that implicated Nathan and a former employee, Alfredo Jose Lopez, who disappeared some time after the investigation.
Miller stated that in March 1977, he had a discussion with Nathan indicating that Nathan wanted to set fire to his business to acquire badly need cash from the insurance settlement. According to Miller, Nathan said that his former employee, Lopez, had offered to make the necessary arrangements for the fire. Miller then agreed to act as a liaison between Nathan and Lopez. Miller received cash and company checks amounting to somewhere between $6000 and $9000, which was used as front money to have the fire set.
Meeting monitored
On Jan. 9, 1978, it was arranged for Miller to meet with Nathan and have a detailed conversation involving their participation in the crime. This conversation was monitored and recorded by the arson investigators and it substantiated the previous statements made by Miller. With this evidence, an arrest warrant was obtained for Nathan. When confronted with the evidence, he made a partial confession.
Two counts of arson, two counts of insurance fraud, and two counts of attempted murder were filed against Nathan by the district attorney’s office. After a five-day preliminary hearing and much plea bargaining, Nathan pleaded guilty to one count of fraud/arson. Miller was granted immunity for his testimony, without which Nathan would have escaped prosecution.
According to Ron Hamel, principal arson investigator in the case, the idea of monetary restitution to the city came as a result of a discussion between him and Jerry Cohen, who prepared and filed the case for the district attorney’s office. It was determined that Nathan’s business had shown a marked improvement since the fire, and it was concluded that restitution could be made if Nathan was allowed to continue operating his business.
Restitution cannot be a part of sentencing if the sentence involves a term in state prison. Therefore, Nathan was sentenced to 365 days in the county jail. The sentence also included $104,000 restitution payment to the City of Los Angeles, financial liability for any civil judgments (which could exceed $500,000) and 10 years felony probabtion. The sentence also placed Nathan on a work furlough program, enabling him to continue his business operation.
In calculating the reimbursement figure for fire fighting and overhaul costs, the fire department used its suggested fee schedule for mutual aid responses outside the City of Los Angeles. This fire schedule was formulated by using a number of factors from overall fire department operational costs, i.e., direct salary costs, charges for equipment, general city overhead, etc. These figures were included on a four-hour basis for five engine companies, four truck companies, two squads, one battalion commander and aide, and one division commander and his aide. These costs totaled $77,000.
In addition to this amount, the arson unit spent approximately 1600 manhours investigating the case at a cost of $27,000, making a total of $104,000.
Last May 30, two years and 17 days after the fire, through the combined efforts of the Los Angeles district attorney’s office and the Los Angeles Fire Department arson unit, Superior Court Judge Betty Jo Sheldon sentenced Nathan. It is believed that this was the first time a defendant in an arson case was required to make restitution to the city for fire fighting and investigative expenses as a condition of probation.
