By Fire Investigation Unit Leader Lt. William Skaggs
The fire is out. Crews are picking up hose. Smoke still hangs in the air as overhaul continues inside the structure.
Someone eventually asks the question that matters most at this stage: “Who’s doing the investigation?”
In larger departments, the answer is simple: A fire marshal or investigation unit is notified, and responsibility transfers to a dedicated team trained specifically for that task.
But in many more departments — particularly small, rural, volunteer and combination departments — that transfer never happens. There is no investigative division arriving with specialized equipment. There is no separate bureau assuming control. Instead, the responsibility often falls to the firefighters and company officers already standing on scene. The officer who just managed suppression operations may now be responsible for determining the origin and cause of the fire, documenting evidence, and producing a report that could influence insurance decisions, criminal investigations and public trust. This reality carries both significant burden and real opportunity.
Leadership beyond rank
It is important to note that fire investigation capability in many departments does not begin with rank — it begins with initiative. Firefighters who pursue education, develop investigative awareness, and take responsibility for learning the process often become the individuals who departments turn to when questions about origin and cause arise.
That was the case here at the Alamogordo Fire Department. Before promoting to shift lieutenant, I built and ran AFD’s Fire Investigations Unit as a firefighter. There was no formal assignment, no investigative division and no rank-based authority directing the work — only a clear need and the willingness to take ownership of it. Even after I promoted to shift lieutenant, I continued to run the unit while also carrying operational and administrative responsibilities.
A balancing act for officers
Fire investigation begins while the fire is still being fought. Suppression decisions — hose placement, ventilation, overhaul — directly affect scene integrity. Without a fire marshal to assume control, firefighters and company officers must balance life safety and incident stabilization with evidence preservation and investigative credibility.
That burden is magnified by limited resources. Documentation is often completed after the shift, sometimes days later, while personnel continue managing training, apparatus readiness and operational duties. It is imperative to train firefighters on how they can complete their fireground responsibilities while being aware of potential investigation impacts.
Evidence without a system
One of the most significant challenges for departments operating without a fire marshal is the responsibility of identifying, collecting and safeguarding evidence without a formal process to rely on. There is often no standardized evidence kit, no designated storage location, no chain‑of‑custody template, and no written procedure guiding initial collection.
Evidence decisions must be made in real time, often immediately following suppression, while scenes are unstable and resources are limited. Investigators must determine what to collect, how to document it and how to secure it, knowing that any misstep may compromise the investigation or its admissibility later.
Without institutional processes, the burden shifts from organizational practice to individual judgment. This reality contributes to a common outcome in many departments: fires being classified as undetermined by default. While an undetermined finding is sometimes appropriate, it should not become the standard simply because structure, training or confidence is lacking.
How to handle fire investigations
For departments looking to build investigative capability without a formal Fire Marshal’s Office, the starting point is rarely a large organizational change. As noted, more often, it begins with one or two motivated personnel — sometimes firefighters — who recognize the need and begin developing the knowledge and systems necessary to support investigations. From there, take these steps:
- Enhance your team’s education and credibility. Personnel who want to develop investigative skills should pursue training aligned with NFPA 1033: Standard for Professional Qualifications for Fire Investigator as well as state fire investigation programs and courses offered through the International Association of Arson Investigators (IAAI).
- Develop a basic system. Even small departments can implement simple investigative systems, such as evidence kits, chain‑of‑custody forms, secure evidence storage, and standardized report templates.
- Build relationships. Collaboration with law enforcement, insurance investigators and regional fire investigators strengthens both investigative capability and credibility.
- Train and mentor others. Leadership in fire investigation means mentorship. Teaching firefighters how to recognize fire patterns, preserve evidence and document scenes ensures investigative capability becomes part of the department’s culture.
Progressing through the NFPA standards
As your crew’s skills advance, review NFPA 1321: Standard for Fire Investigation Units to further define expectations for fire investigation units. For departments without a fire marshal, it also adds burden — policies, documentation, quality assurance and program oversight.
For company officers and firefighters responsible for investigations, NFPA 1321 can serve as a roadmap rather than simply another requirement. The standard outlines key elements of a functional investigation program, including written procedures, training expectations, documentation practices and evidence handling.
While NFPA 1321 focuses on the structure of an investigative program, investigators must also understand the role of NFPA 921: Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations, which establishes the scientific methodology used to determine origin and cause. NFPA 921 reinforces that fire investigation is not based on intuition or tradition, but on a systematic process of observation, hypothesis development, testing and conclusion. When investigators rely on this methodology, their findings become far more defensible both professionally and legally.
When professional authority meets the chain of command
It is important to note that during active operations, rank governs the scene. Once suppression transitions to investigation, authority shifts from operational rank to professional responsibility. This transition can create tension if not handled with clarity and respect. The investigator is not outranking command, but assuming responsibility for a defined purpose. Communication determines whether professionalism or conflict prevails.
Bottom line: Leadership in fire investigation is earned through action, credibility and respect for science, evidence and the chain of command.
A call to ownership
Departments do not need a large Fire Marshal’s Office to begin improving investigative capability. What they need are firefighters and officers willing to invest in education, build basic systems, mentor others and treat fire investigation as a professional responsibility rather than an afterthought.
For those willing to take ownership of the process, investigation becomes more than a report completed after the fire; it becomes the moment the fire service stops asking what burned and starts answering why it burned.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Lieutenant William Skaggs is the Fire Investigation Unit Leader for the Alamogordo (N.M.) Fire Department. Skaggs is an adjunct instructor with the New Mexico Firefighters Training Academy and serves as president of the New Mexico Chapter of the International Association of Arson Investigators.
