What legal principle is this? (plane crash on property)

Let’s say you’re a farmer in South Dakota.

One day, a big airliner carrying 200 passengers crashes into your land, killing everyone. There’s a giant smoking mess of wreckage. Your farm is soon swarming with governmental investigators, etc.
Could you legally refuse to allow these governmental people on your private property? Does the 4th Amendment apply? Or does “compelling public interest” override your rights?

Since the aircraft was the property of the airline, could they say, “It’s our property on your property, we have a right to access our property?”

I’m pretty sure compelling public interest would win, and rather quickly. If you tried to stop the First Responders, they’d just slap the cuffs on you, toss you in a cell and deal with you later.

Investigating the crash, retrieving the bodies, and removing the wreckage would certainly fall under “compelling public interest”… although you might have a say about who would be allowed on your property. For example you could limit the number of onlookers who don’t have any reason to be there. If there is damage to your land someone (e.g. the airline or their insurance company) would be responsible for putting it back to the way it was before the crash.

Ok - is that the actual name of the legal principle? “Compelling public interest?”

Could it be said they were in “hot pursuit”? If so that usually allows access most places.

Ok - is that the actual name of the legal principle? “Compelling public interest?”

Actually, the principal is “compelling government interest.”

I think it’s worth noting that the 4th amendment protects you from “unreasonable” search and seizure not from “reasonable” search and it is certainly reasonable for police and emergency personnel to respond to a plane crash. If the FAA decides that the wreckage needs to stay in place for a couple of months regardless of your need to farm the land, then I suspect you’ll find “compelling governmental interest” leaving you with no recourse other than possibly suing the airline.

They’re not pursuing anyone - they’re investigating an accident and/or rescuing victims. Even if they determine that it was a crime they aren’t pursuing the perpetrators through the wreckage.

Well, it missed my place and just went, whoosh, as it flew over. And it did it by post 7

This scenario actually happened over my hometown are on the Louisiana/Texas border when the space shuttle Columbia blew up. The entire region became a search zone and investigators walked though every single inch of woods, yards and pasture over the next few months to locate relevant debris (the debris field was gigantic and spread over many miles and two states). I don’t know what laws that they invoked but it wasn’t optional for landowners. They found lots of scattered shuttle parts, many marijuana patches and lots of other illegal things in the process. I am not sure if anyone was ever prosecuted for the incidental finds.

Somewhat similarly, I know from personal experience that if a stealth fighter loses its wing and lands on your neighbor’s house, the government will block off your neighborhood, restrict access to the area, and will search any car going in and out of the area that they feel like searching, until they comb the area and pick up every teeny tiny piece of aircraft they can find, and there’s nothing that anyone who lives there can do about it. I also know from personal experience that it takes them a very long time to find every teeny tiny little piece of stealth fighter.

On the plus side, the government will also pay to rebuild the home they squished, and then some.

Did you claim severe emotional trauma from the event that could only be addressed by a new deck and inground pool? :smiley:

Takes a beatin’ and keeps on stealthin’.

Strangely, this is one of the rare circumstances that it’s easier if it involves the military.

If it is a military aircraft that crashes onto your property, the area will be declared a National Defense Area until the incident has concluded and the wreckage is removed. I don’t know specifically who makes that declaration. A National Defense Area declaration has the same effect as turning the property into a military base, and the same rules as on a base then apply, including access. You won’t be getting into the area unless someone says it’s ok, and don’t expect them to say that. Usually, the military police have full jurisdiction over the scene. As engineer stated above, the government will be kind enough to replace what their hardware squished.

If it is a civilian aircraft, it can become more complicated. The fire department (and to a lesser extent, police) can enter your property without warrant under exigent circumstances. Can you think of another government agency, other than the fire department, that regularly, as a course of normal operations, enters private property without the owner’s permission or a warrant? The report of a fire or other emergency gives firefighters the full authority to enter private property for the purposes of preserving life and property. Investigation can begin during this time as well (see Michigan v. Tyler, 436 US 499 (1978) and Michigan v. Clifford, 464 US 287 (1984)). Once the incident is fully stabilized (which for an air carrier aircraft crash would likely be days), the exigent circumstances expire.

Each state has an aeronautics inspector of some type, that person is usually on scene of an accident within a few hours. The FAA is usually on scene within a few hours after the state inspector (or in some cases with or before). For an air carrier accident, NTSB would be establishing a major presence, and can take up to 12 hours to arrive. Thus, for the start of the investigation, we are still in the “exigent circumstances” phase, and no warrant is needed. We’re here, please step out of the way.

Once the incident is stable (a day or three?), as in the fires are out, the injured/deceased have been removed, and the fuel has been picked up, we enter a different phase. Now access to your property is questionable, and either your permission is needed, or if you don’t want to give permission, an administrative warrant is needed, or, if there is evidence of criminal activity, a search warrant. I don’t know if the NTSB has some sort of special powers granted to it under the compelling government interest theory that allows them to maintain a scene for a certain period. I can’t find it if there is, nor have I heard of anything either way in many conversations with a number of NTSB folks.

Cleanup of the site and removal of the aircraft is the responsibility of the aircraft owner/operator. If the local, state, or federal government steps in to remediate the site, they will chase the aircraft owner/operator (or their insurance company) to pay.

Probably at least in theory this depends on why it crashed.

If a piece of an f-117 landed on my backyard I WOULD take a souvenir.

For about 5 minutes until they took and from you and you got taken to jail. I don’t know how the U.S. government does it but you just cannot screw with pieces of military debris even if they land on your property.

Perzactly… They get plum cranky about it. :cool:

I wonder how this works in practice. When planes have crashed on residential neighbourhoods, sometimes the houses are rebuilt but sometimes the area is left clear. The main impact site in Lockerbie is now a memorial garden. Presumably the survivors whose houses were destroyed were rehoused at the cost of Pan Am’s insurers?

As I said above, probably at least in theory this depends on why it crashed. In the case of Lockerbie, the bill should most obviously be sent to the guy who caused the plane to crash, which I don’t think was necessarily Pan Am. I believe that Gaddafi would be a better candidate.

There is a common misconception that the rule is “your asset, you pay”. This just isn’t correct in many circumstances. The actual rule is “your fault, you pay”. Now it may be that Pan Am or their insurers agreed to pay out of goodwill. Or it could be that the homeowners sued on the basis that the crash was caused by Pan Am’s lack of security precautions. But it isn’t as obvious as people often assume that merely because someone else caused my plane to crash, I’m responsible for the mess.

The F-117 has toxic coating or skin, I think.