A wildfire can destroy homes, businesses, neighborhoods, and public land in a matter of hours. When prosecutors believe the fire was intentionally set, the criminal case often becomes one of the most serious cases a person can be accused of in California.
But a wildfire arson case is rarely simple. Fire changes the evidence. Wind moves it. Water, aircraft drops, bulldozers, emergency crews, and time can alter the scene before investigators ever complete their work. In a large Los Angeles wildfire, prosecutors may rely on fire-origin analysis, cellphone data, surveillance video, witness statements, weather reports, social media activity, and alleged motive evidence. Even then, the case may come down to whether the government can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The recent Palisades fire arson case shows why these prosecutions can be so difficult. The defendant was accused in federal court of starting the earlier Lachman Fire, which prosecutors alleged later became the Palisades Fire after smoldering underground and reemerging days later. The first trial ended in a mistrial after jurors did not reach a unanimous verdict.
That result does not prove whether the defendant started the fire. It does show how difficult it can be to prove arson in wildfires, even when prosecutors bring digital evidence, witness accounts, and fire-scene analysis into court.
The Palisades Fire arson case drew national attention because of the scale of the damage and the theory advanced by prosecutors. According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California, Jonathan Rinderknecht was indicted on charges of destruction of property by means of fire, arson affecting property used in interstate commerce, and timber set afire in a case arising from the Lachman/Palisades Fire.
Those are serious federal charges. They also show how a wildfire arson case in Los Angeles can move beyond state court. If the fire damages federal property, involves land connected to federal funding, affects property used in interstate commerce, or burns vegetation on land under federal jurisdiction, federal prosecutors may become involved.
For a person accused of starting a wildfire, the charge alone can create enormous public pressure, particularly if they are linked to the fire scene. The government may have press conferences, victim-impact concerns, financial loss figures, forensic reports, and public anger behind the prosecution. An attorney has to slow the case down and force the prosecution to prove each element with reliable evidence.
That is one reason a Los Angeles arson lawyer must look beyond the headline. The question is not whether the fire was devastating. The question is not whether the fire was devastating, but rather what physical evidence can be collected to understand its cause.
Wildfire arson cases are hard to prove because the prosecution must prove more than the existence of a fire. Prosecutors must connect a specific person to the act that started it. They must also prove the required mental state. That can be difficult for several reasons.
First, the area of origin may be damaged or destroyed. Fire crews may cut lines, move debris, spray water, drop retardant, or drive equipment through the area. All of that may be necessary to fight the fire, but it can affect later investigation.
Second, wildfires often have multiple possible causes. Investigators may examine fireworks, power lines, campfires, cigarettes, vehicles, lightning, electrical equipment, homeless encampments, construction activity, and other possible ignition sources. If the defense can show another reasonable cause, the prosecution’s theory may weaken.
Third, wildfire movement does not always prove the origin. A fire may burn in one direction because of slope, wind, dry brush, or fuel patterns, which are key indicators for fire investigators. A burn pattern can help investigators, but it does not always answer every question.
Fourth, motive evidence can be risky. Prosecutors may point to internet searches, songs, videos, posts, texts, statements, or personal history. But motive evidence is not the same as proof that someone set a fire. A person can have strange interests, bad judgment, anger, or poor timing without being guilty of arson.
Finally, causation can become a major issue. In some wildfire cases, the government may claim that one smaller fire smoldered underground and later became a much larger fire. That theory can depend on weather, suppression work, root systems, soil conditions, wind events, fire mapping, and competing opinions about how fire behaves. When a case depends on that kind of proof, the defense must test every link in the chain.
Every case deserves
a strong defense
California law treats arson and reckless burning differently. According to Penal Code § 451, a person commits arson when they willfully and maliciously set fire to, burn, cause to be burned, or help burn a structure, forest land, or property. The words “willfully” and “maliciously” are important. They separate arson from accidents and some forms of careless conduct.
Penal Code § 452 applies to unlawfully causing a fire, often referred to as reckless burning. That statute applies when a person recklessly sets fire to, burns, or causes a structure, forest land, or property to burn. The difference can change the entire case.
Arson focuses on willful and malicious conduct, often requiring the determination of whether an accelerant was used. Reckless burning in California charges focus on reckless conduct. Recklessness is more than a simple mistake, but it differs from intentional, malicious burning.
In a wildfire case, this distinction can become one of the main issues in the defense. Did the person intentionally set a fire? Did the person act recklessly? Was the fire accidental? Was the accused person even the cause? Did investigators rule out other causes too quickly?
A person charged with arson in a wildfire should not assume the prosecution’s label is the final answer. The facts, the mental state, and the evidence all have to be tested.
Federal arson charges may arise in California cases when the alleged fire affects federal property, property tied to interstate commerce, or land under federal jurisdiction.
Federal law also includes several fire-related statutes. Fire investigation standards from the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) may also come up in wildfire arson cases, especially when investigators analyze origin, cause, burn patterns, fire spread, and ignition sources.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 844(f), prosecutors may charge malicious damage or destruction by fire or explosive of certain federal property or property connected to an institution or organization that receives federal financial assistance. According to 18 U.S.C. § 844(i), federal prosecutors may charge malicious destruction by fire or explosive of property used in interstate or foreign commerce, or in an activity affecting interstate or foreign commerce.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 1855, federal law addresses willfully setting fire to timber, underbrush, grass, or other inflammable material on certain federal lands or lands under federal jurisdiction.
A federal arson case can carry severe prison exposure. It may also involve federal investigators, federal prosecutors, federal rules of procedure, and a different pace than many state cases. That does not mean the government’s case is automatically stronger. Federal prosecutors still must prove the elements of the charged offense.
Federal prosecutors must prove that the accused person committed the act, had the required mental state, and prove the federal connection. Additionally, the government must prove causation, establishing the cause of the fire beyond a reasonable doubt. In a wildfire case, those questions can be contested from the start, often requiring forensic science to establish facts.
Modern wildfire arson charges often depend on several kinds of evidence. Fire-origin evidence may include burn patterns, char depth, wind direction, slope, fuel load, vegetation, soil conditions, root systems, and the location where investigators believe the fire began, all of which are examined by fire investigators. In a large wildfire, investigators may also study how the fire spread over time and whether an earlier fire could have remained active below the surface.
Cellphone evidence may include location data, call records, app usage, photos, videos, searches, messages, and movement history. Prosecutors may use this evidence to place a person near an origin point or to argue that the person’s conduct before or after the fire was suspicious.
Surveillance footage may come from homes, businesses, traffic cameras, trail cameras, Ring cameras, or public agencies. Video can be useful, but it can also be incomplete. A camera may capture a vehicle without showing who was driving. It may show a person in the area without showing an ignition. It may miss the timing, distance, or visibility needed to prove the prosecution’s theory.
Witness testimony can also create problems for both sides. Wildfire events unfold fast. People may be scared, moving away from danger, calling 911, trying to help neighbors, or watching smoke from a distance. Stress can affect memory. So can time, media coverage, and later conversations with investigators.
Digital evidence should also be examined carefully. Location data is not always exact. A phone near a fire does not prove its owner started the fire. A search history or video history may be taken out of context. A gap in data may have a normal explanation. The defense must look at what the evidence actually proves, not only what prosecutors say it suggests.
Every wildfire arson case depends on its own facts, but several defense issues often come up. One defense is a lack of identity. The prosecution may not be able to prove who started the fire. A person may have been near the area, but presence is not the same as arson.
Another defense is a lack of intent or malice. Even when a person is connected to a fire, the prosecution may still have to prove the mental state required for the charge. Accident, mistake, panic, poor judgment, or reckless conduct may not meet the elements of malicious arson.
Another defense is an alternative cause. If fireworks, power equipment, cigarettes, another person, natural conditions, or another ignition source could explain the fire, that can raise a reasonable doubt.
Causation is also a major issue, as it involves determining the cause of the fire with precision. In a large wildfire, the prosecution may need to prove that the accused person’s alleged act caused the later fire damage. If a smaller fire was extinguished or believed extinguished, and a subsequent wind event caused further spread, the defense may question whether the government can connect the alleged act to the final damage.
The defense may also challenge the investigation methods. Did investigators preserve the scene properly? Did they consider other causes? Did they rely too much on digital evidence? Did they interpret burn patterns fairly? Did they lock onto a suspect too soon?
A defense may also focus on the difference between arson and reckless burning. If the facts do not support willful and malicious conduct, the defense may argue that the arson charge goes beyond what the evidence can prove.
Wildfire damage can be heartbreaking. Jurors may hear about destroyed homes, lost businesses, deaths, injuries, evacuations, animals killed, and neighborhoods changed forever. Those facts can be powerful. But criminal law requires proof. The size of the loss does not reduce the government’s burden. In court, prosecutors must prove the accused person committed the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
That burden applies even in a high-profile case. It applies even when the public wants answers. It applies even when the fire caused massive damage. A defense lawyer’s role is not to minimize what victims lost. The role is to protect the accused person’s rights and test whether the government can prove the case. In wildfire arson cases, that means examining the science, the investigation, the digital evidence, the timeline, the alleged motive, and the charging theory.
Wildfire arson charges can involve state law, federal law, forensic fire investigation, digital evidence, and severe penalties. A person accused of starting a fire in Los Angeles needs a defense that starts early and looks at every part of the government’s case.
William S. Kroger, Attorney at Law, defends individuals accused of serious crimes in Los Angeles. If you are under investigation for wildfire arson, reckless burning in California, or federal arson charges, it is advisable to consult a Los Angeles arson lawyer before answering questions or making decisions that could impact your case.
Contact William S. Kroger, Attorney at Law, to discuss your defense by calling 323-655-5700 or by using the confidential online contact form.
Criminal charges
can change your life
"*" indicates required fields
