# Firefighters and The Law **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 1, 2005, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firefighters-and-the-law/306364 "2005-06-01T14:03:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ccd318/32.png) [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paul_in_Qatar)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2005, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firefighters-and-the-law/306364/1 "2005-06-01T14:03:44Z")
Let us limit our discussion to Western countries, to make it simpler. How and why is it legal for government employees to enter my house when I am away just because it is on fire? I realize of course it is. I also realize it ought to be (fire is a public danger). Still, there must be some interesting case law on this. Some questions come to my fevered mind. If firefighters enter my home can they seize evidence of a crime? What if the evidence is not in plain sight? Can I chase firefighters off my property if I do not want the fire to be put out? What if this particular fire is not a public danger? Can I chase them off my lawn if they are using it to fight a fire on my neighbor’s property? Are firefighters (and their agencies) liable for damages caused in my home? What if my high-priced lawyer can prove they caused more damage that was required? Am I liable if a firefighter comes in my home and steps in my collection of Africa Lion Traps I keep in the living room? Are laws like this pretty universal, or do some countries do things differently? ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2005, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firefighters-and-the-law/306364/2 "2005-06-01T14:10:00Z")
Answer to main question: > [@](#): > > A burning building of course creates an exigency that justifies a warrantless entry by fire officials to fight the blaze. Moreover, in Tyler we held that once in the building, officials need no warrant to remain 3 for “a reasonable time to investigate the cause of a blaze after it has been extinguished.” 436 U.S., at 510 . > **[FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/464/287.html)** > > FindLaw's searchable database of United States Supreme Court decisions since ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2005, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firefighters-and-the-law/306364/3 "2005-06-01T14:19:03Z")
Regarding firefighters damaging your home, there is a doctrine called the firefighter’s rule, which holds that firefighters should know that entering a burning builiding is dangerous, and therefore assume the risk of injury. [http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.asp?page=getObject&objName=mcl-600-2967&queryid=10278177](http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.asp?page=getObject&objName=mcl-600-2967&queryid=10278177) But there are many exceptions. [http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi\_qa3898/is\_200406/ai\_n9435709](http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3898/is_200406/ai_n9435709) > **[FindLaw's WI case and opinions.](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/courts/Wisconsin)** > > FindLaw's searchable database of WI decisions since ---
**Author:** ![casdave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c6cbf5/32.png) [@casdave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/casdave)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2005, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firefighters-and-the-law/306364/4 "2005-06-01T14:26:17Z")
The fire itself may be evidence of a crime, or evidence of other crimes may be damaged or destroyed by fire, your objections to the fire being controlled may have any number of motivations, all of which could be disputed after the immediate event. The fire fighter does not have the luxury of time to set up a debating group to discuss the merits of wehter or not to tackle a particular incident. The overriding presumption is surely to act on the assumption that there is a risk to public safety unless its immediately apparent there is no such risk, which would need the ‘once over’ by a trained professional such as a firefighter. Immediately apparent would mean just that, quickly obvious, if in fact there was no real risk, but it was not obvious there was no real risk, then the firefighter would still be in the clear. You could ask the firefighters not to enter your premises but I would assume that they would wish to make some sort of assessment, if the result of their assessment was that there were some risk, to persons, property or environment then you would not be able to legally stop them. In that situation, they would most likely take a look, decide the risks were nil and would withdraw, although they might keep someone around to monitor things. They might also look to see if you had taken sensible precautions, they would (in Europe and especially UK) send in a Fire Authority inspector who would investigate wether you had carried out the necessary evaluation of risk. It is possible that the risk was negligable but you might be prosecuted for not making a ‘suitable and sufficient’ risk assessment. In most incidents, there is a person available, such as a senior supervisor, who would be able to lock the site down until other investigators arrived, and the lock down would happen if there were any suspicion of some crime. In the UK, fire authorities have their own investigators who have the powers of constables, and actually have some extra powers, such as the right to enter premises without a warrant, usually accompanied by a constable who is under the inspectors orders. Such an inspector could certainly sieze any evidence relating to criminal fire damage, other evidence would be reported to police investigators. Setting traps, or having your premises as being unsafe to enter, by way of your African Lion traps would be a criminal offence, I could quote the actual wording and Act of Parliament exactly on this issue, it would come under ‘Persons in Control of Premises’ which is a subsection of the Health And Safety At Work Act 1974(HASAWA) ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2005, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firefighters-and-the-law/306364/5 "2005-06-01T14:33:14Z")
Damages by firefighters in the line of duty are covered by Good Samaritan laws: [http://www.nvfc.org/benefits/state-by-state.php?Type=Malpractice](http://www.nvfc.org/benefits/state-by-state.php?Type=Malpractice) Also, there are issues of sovereign immunity if you try to sue the fire department. [http://wyomcases.courts.state.wy.us/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?citeID=122819](http://wyomcases.courts.state.wy.us/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?citeID=122819) Here is an interesting case. [http://mrsc-web.mrsc.org/mc/courts/supreme/144wn2d/144wn2d0774.htm](http://mrsc-web.mrsc.org/mc/courts/supreme/144wn2d/144wn2d0774.htm) This area is probably the murkiest of the three that you asked about. _See_, [http://www.hrva.com/pgcasualty/94sprqr.htm#IMMUNITY](http://www.hrva.com/pgcasualty/94sprqr.htm#IMMUNITY) ---
**Author:** ![Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ccd318/32.png) [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paul_in_Qatar)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2005, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firefighters-and-the-law/306364/6 "2005-06-01T14:35:57Z")
Surely I am allowed to keep my African Lion Traps in my own home? It is a private place and the pose no danger in normal circumstances, although a fire fighter my injure himself due to limited visibility during an emergency. As to evidence, would a fire inspector take evidence of illegal activity not related to the fire and its cause? (By the way, some of my English books here are in fact British. Is the use of the term ‘firefighter’ or ‘fireman’ more or less standard there now, or is ‘fire protection officer’ in common use?) ---
**Author:** ![casdave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c6cbf5/32.png) [@casdave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/casdave)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2005, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firefighters-and-the-law/306364/7 "2005-06-01T14:55:30Z")
Your lion traps are causing a danger in normal circumstances, its only your knowledge that they are there that keeps them from injuring you, anyone without that knowledge is at risk, in fact their presence is actually an abnormal circumstance, its not reasonable for anyone to expect such an unprotected hazard in any premises, now if they had warning signs and safety guards… In the same way, you would not be able to keep certain substances, chemicals and the like, without permits. ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2005, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firefighters-and-the-law/306364/8 "2005-06-01T15:00:55Z")
> [@Paul in Saudi](#): > > (By the way, some of my English books here are in fact British. Is the use of the term ‘firefighter’ or ‘fireman’ more or less standard there now, or is ‘fire protection officer’ in common use?) [They call themselves](http://www.fbu.org.uk/) firefighters, although ‘firemen’ is still common parlance. ‘Fire Protection Officer’ is a different job entirely, more along the lines of Health & Safety Officer, and Environmental Health Officer. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2005, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firefighters-and-the-law/306364/9 "2005-06-01T15:01:03Z")
> [@Paul in Saudi](#): > > Some questions come to my fevered mind. If firefighters enter my home can they seize evidence of a crime? What if the evidence is not in plain sight? Interesting item I remember seeing on the news. [http://www.detnow.com/wxyz/nw\_local\_news/article/0,2132,WXYZ\_15924\_3051335,00.html](http://www.detnow.com/wxyz/nw_local_news/article/0,2132,WXYZ_15924_3051335,00.html) > [@](#): > > Can I chase firefighters off my property if I do not want the fire to be put out? What if this particular fire is not a public danger? Can I chase them off my lawn if they are using it to fight a fire on my neighbor’s property? Not in Michigan. [http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.asp?page=getObject&objName=mcl-750-81d&queryid=10279130](http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.asp?page=getObject&objName=mcl-750-81d&queryid=10279130) [http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.asp?page=getObject&objName=mcl-750-241&queryid=10279130](http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.asp?page=getObject&objName=mcl-750-241&queryid=10279130) ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2005, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firefighters-and-the-law/306364/10 "2005-06-01T15:14:49Z")
> [@Paul in Saudi](#): > > As to evidence, would a fire inspector take evidence of illegal activity not related to the fire and its cause? According to the case I cited, if it is no longer an emergency, the inspector needs a warrant to investigate the fire. I’m not familiar with any authority on this point, but my WAG is that if there is evidence of a crime in plain sight, the inspector could seize it, though he would probably be better off contacting the police and having them do it. If the evidence is not in plain sight, and the scope of the warrant does not permit the inspector to look where the stuff is, then the inspector has no business finding it in the first place. Problem is, when you are looking for arson tools, some of which are small and some of which are liquids, there are few places you can’t be expected to look for them. ---
**Author:** ![BwanaBob](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bwanabob/32/2985_2.png) [@BwanaBob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BwanaBob)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2005, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firefighters-and-the-law/306364/11 "2005-06-01T15:23:18Z")
Back in college, we had a fire in my apartment (dog knocked over a lit candle that a careless housemate left burning). She also happened to have marijuana plants in her room. Also in the apartment are some street signs left by previous tenants. Along comes the fire department (and police). After the fire was extinguished, the police promptly remove the plants but do not arrest the housemate on grounds that they had no warrant, but were somehow still entitled to confiscate the plants. I was questioned about the street signs but told them (the truth) that they were holdovers from the previous tenant and that if they wanted them they could take them. They left the signs. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2005, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firefighters-and-the-law/306364/12 "2005-06-01T15:37:36Z")
> [@BwanaBob](#): > > After the fire was extinguished, the police promptly remove the plants but do not arrest the housemate on grounds that they had no warrant, but were somehow still entitled to confiscate the plants. I have heard similar stories. I think this is because: 1. The police think this is the rule, but it really isn’t; 2. The police cut you a break, and came up with a legal-sounding justification for it; 3. State law is more stringent than federal on warrant requirements; or 4. Some combination of the above. And see this story: [Drug Rehab Addiction Treatment Drug Rehabilitation Alcohol Rehab Centers](http://www.addictionca.com/user-news.htm?id=111) (wherein the police were not so nice under similar circumstances) And check out the news item I cited earlier. (In that case, the fire department was responding to a gas leak, and found naked pictures–completely legal naked pictures–in the guy’s basement. They seized the pictures and some other stuff and photographed his basement, all while the gas leak was still an ongoing emergency.) ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2005, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firefighters-and-the-law/306364/13 "2005-06-01T15:44:04Z")
> [@Gfactor](#): > > And check out the news item I cited earlier. (In that case, the fire department was responding to a gas leak, and found naked pictures–completely legal naked pictures–in the guy’s basement. They seized the pictures and some other stuff and photographed his basement, all while the gas leak was still an ongoing emergency.) Ok. I didn’t have it quite right. The firefighters contacted the police, who then searched the basement without a warrant. [http://www.arborupdate.com/article/373/ypsi-police-may-face-federal-charges](http://www.arborupdate.com/article/373/ypsi-police-may-face-federal-charges) ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2005, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firefighters-and-the-law/306364/14 "2005-06-01T16:45:48Z")
My searching skills are lacking but I believe that firemen in the U.K. have a statutory right of entry in such cases - they don’t need your permission. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2005, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firefighters-and-the-law/306364/15 "2005-06-01T17:49:04Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > My searching skills are lacking but I believe that firemen in the U.K. have a statutory right of entry in such cases - they don’t need your permission. Here is a short [FAQ](http://www.firecomm.gov.mb.ca/investigations_FAQs.html) on the situation in Manitoba. ---
**Author:** ![picunurse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7bcc69/32.png) [@picunurse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/picunurse)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2005, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firefighters-and-the-law/306364/16 "2005-06-01T18:06:49Z")
> [@Gfactor](#): > > \*\*According to the case I cited, if it is no longer an emergency, the inspector needs a warrant to investigate the fire. \*\* > > I’m not familiar with any authority on this point, but my WAG is that if there is evidence of a crime in plain sight, the inspector could seize it, though he would probably be better off contacting the police and having them do it. > > If the evidence is not in plain sight, and the scope of the warrant does not permit the inspector to look where the stuff is, then the inspector has no business finding it in the first place. > > Problem is, when you are looking for arson tools, some of which are small and some of which are liquids, there are few places you can’t be expected to look for them. (My bold) The case you cited wouldn’t apply if the fire was on the property. In your article, the danger was a gas leak outside the individual’s home. The emergency was no longer related to that house once the gas leak was controlled. If a house has been on fire, the arson investigators continue to have access until full determination of origin has been established, according to my firefighter husband. I don’t have an internet cite, and his code book is at work. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2005, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firefighters-and-the-law/306364/17 "2005-06-01T18:13:55Z")
And here are some good cases upholding firefighters’ seizures of contraband and the use of the seized evidence at trial. [http://www.mrsc.org/mc/courts/supreme/108wn2d/108wn2d0193.htm](http://www.mrsc.org/mc/courts/supreme/108wn2d/108wn2d0193.htm) > **[FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/436/499.html)** > > FindLaw's searchable database of United States Supreme Court decisions since > [@](#): > > If any incriminating object comes into view during the performance of the fireman’s duty, it may be seized without a warrant pursuant to the “plain view” doctrine. See Michigan v. Clifford, 464 U.S. 287, 295 n.6 (1983). For that exception to the warrant requirement to apply, the record must show (1) a prior justification for the intrusion, (2) inadvertent discovery of incriminating evidence,4 and (3) immediate knowledge by the official that the evidence he is observing is probably contraband. See Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 466 (1971) (it must be “immediately apparent” to the officers that they have discovered evidence of criminal activity). > > . . . . > > After a fireman has observed evidence in plain view, he may summon a police officer, who may enter the residence and seize the evidence without first obtaining a warrant. See United States v. Green, 474 F.2d 1385, 1390 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 829 (1973); Commonwealth v. Person, 560 A.2d 761, 766 (Pa. Super. 1989); State v. Bell, 737 P.2d 254, 257-58 (Wash. 1987). In Green, the Court noted that where a lawful intrusion has already occurred, and a seizure by an official has validly taken place as a result of that intrusion, the invasion of privacy is not increased by an additional officer entering the residence. [http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:ydQ2LcnzdbgJ:www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opncavwp/2024971.doc+firefighters+discover+contraband&hl=en&client=firefox-a](http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:ydQ2LcnzdbgJ:www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opncavwp/2024971.doc+firefighters+discover+contraband&hl=en&client=firefox-a) [http://www.law.cornell.edu/nyctap/I01\_0113.htm](http://www.law.cornell.edu/nyctap/I01_0113.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2005, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firefighters-and-the-law/306364/18 "2005-06-01T18:28:37Z")
> [@picunurse](#): > > (My bold) The case you cited wouldn’t apply if the fire was on the property. In your article, the danger was a gas leak outside the individual’s home. The emergency was no longer related to that house once the gas leak was controlled. > If a house has been on fire, the arson investigators continue to have access until full determination of origin has been established, according to my firefighter husband. I don’t have an internet cite, and his code book is at work. The United States Supreme Court says that once the investigators leave, they can’t come back without a warrant: > [@](#): > > We observed in Tyler that reasonable privacy expectations may remain in fire-damaged premises. “People may go on living in their homes or working in their offices after a fire. Even when that is impossible, private effects often remain on the fire-damaged premises.” Tyler, 436 U.S., at 505 . Privacy expectations will vary with the type of property, the amount of fire damage, the prior and continued use of the premises, and in some cases the owner’s efforts to secure it against intruders. Some fires may be so devastating that no reasonable privacy interests remain in the ash and ruins, regardless of the owner’s subjective expectations. The test essentially is an objective one: whether “the expectation [is] one that society is prepared to recognize as `reasonable.’” Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 361 (1967) (Harlan, J., concurring). See also Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 739 -741 (1979). If reasonable privacy interests remain in [464 U.S. 287, 293] the fire-damaged property, the warrant requirement applies, and any official entry must be made pursuant to a warrant in the absence of consent or exigent circumstances. > > A burning building of course creates an exigency that justifies a warrantless entry by fire officials to fight the blaze. Moreover, in Tyler we held that once in the building, officials need no warrant to remain 3 for “a reasonable time to investigate the cause of a blaze after it has been extinguished.” 436 U.S., at 510 . **Where, however, reasonable expectations of privacy remain in the fire-damaged property, additional investigations begun after the fire has been extinguished and fire and police officials have left the scene, generally must be made pursuant to a warrant or the identification of some new exigency.** > > The aftermath of a fire often presents exigencies that will not tolerate the delay necessary to obtain a warrant or to secure the owner’s consent to inspect fire-damaged premises. 4 Because determining the cause and origin of a fire serves a compelling public interest, the warrant requirement does not apply in such cases. [464 U.S. 287, 294] (Emphasis added). [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=464&invol=287](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=464&invol=287) (evidence of arson discovered by fire investigators in warrantless post-fire search excluded because warrantless post-fire search violated defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights). But I agree that: 1. If the firefighters had needed to snoop around in the guy’s basement in order to make sure the a fire was out; and 2. If the things discovered had appeared to be contraband (naked pictures are seldom contraband) The firefighters could have legally seized the evidence themselves, or involved the police. In that particular case, neither proposition was true, which is why the story made the news. _and see_, [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=mt&vol=97&invol=710](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=mt&vol=97&invol=710) (Montana constitution required exclusion of evidence where police entered home to seize evidence without warrant after firefighters had left). ---
**Author:** ![MaryEFoo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@MaryEFoo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaryEFoo)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2005, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firefighters-and-the-law/306364/19 "2005-06-01T20:14:01Z")
As an extension to the African Lion Traps questions, I’ve heard verbal chat to the effect that razor wire requires a permit here (San Jose, Calif), and an issue (the main issue?) is access by firefighters. Permitting requirements are usually county-by-county. It may be that surrounding your place with razor wire allows you the honor and privilege of putting out your own fires. _This post contains second-hand and speculative information. Use at your own risk._ ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2005, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firefighters-and-the-law/306364/20 "2005-06-01T20:47:31Z")
> [@](#): > > 17.24.040 Prohibited fences. > A. Barbed wire, razor wire and electric fences are prohibited from use on any parcel of property in the city that is used for residential purposes and is not subject to a development permit requirement pursuant to Chapter 20.100 of Title 20 of the code. > > B. No glass or other sharp materials may be embedded on the surface of a fence constructed and maintained on any parcel of property in the city that is used for residential purposes and is not subject to a development permit requirement pursuant to Chapter 20.100 of Title 20 of the code. > > (Ord. 23405.) [http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/San%20Jose/title00285.htm/chapter00295.htm?f=templates$fn=altmain-nf.htm$3.0#JD\_17.24.040](http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/San%20Jose/title00285.htm/chapter00295.htm?f=templates%24fn=altmain-nf.htm%243.0#JD_17.24.040) Surrounding your home with razor wire will earn you the privilege of a citation and an order to remove it. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firefighters-and-the-law/306364.md?page=2)