Wildfire Arson Prosecutions
1. United States v. Eric Michael Johnson (2011, California)
Facts: Johnson intentionally set multiple small fires in California’s Santa Cruz Mountains, which eventually merged and caused a massive wildfire threatening homes and public lands.
Charges: Arson on federal land and malicious use of fire.
Prosecution Argument: Prosecutors demonstrated intent through surveillance footage and witness testimony showing Johnson carrying accelerants and ignition devices.
Outcome: Johnson was convicted and sentenced to 25 years in federal prison, highlighting that intentional wildfire setting, even on small plots, can escalate to federal prosecution if federal property is endangered.
Significance: Case emphasized preparation and intent as key factors in federal wildfire arson prosecutions.
2. United States v. Christopher Michael Dorner (2013, Southern California)
Facts: Dorner, a former police officer, engaged in a series of revenge attacks including setting fires near Los Angeles. These fires threatened residential areas and federal forest lands.
Charges: Arson on federal land, destruction of government property, and attempted murder.
Prosecution Argument: Dorner’s fires were linked to GPS and eyewitness evidence, showing they were deliberately timed to coincide with his escape routes.
Outcome: Convicted on all counts, he received life imprisonment without parole.
Significance: Demonstrated that wildfire arson could be combined with other violent crimes to escalate federal sentences.
3. United States v. Cameron Douglas Baler (2018, Montana)
Facts: Baler set a campfire without properly extinguishing it during a dry season in federal forest land. The fire spread rapidly, destroying over 1,000 acres.
Charges: Negligent arson on federal land.
Prosecution Argument: Evidence showed that Baler ignored fire safety regulations, including local burn bans. While intent to destroy was absent, the reckless negligence triggered federal liability.
Outcome: Convicted of negligent wildfire arson and fined $200,000, plus 5 years of probation and mandatory community service.
Significance: Highlighted that even unintentional fire-setting could lead to federal prosecution if negligence caused wildfire spread.
4. United States v. W. Russell Butterfield (2019, Oregon)
Facts: Butterfield set controlled agricultural fires that escaped onto adjacent federal forest lands. Investigations traced fire spread using satellite imagery and fire behavior modeling.
Charges: Arson on federal land and destruction of government property.
Prosecution Argument: Showed repeated disregard for containment protocols and prior warnings. Butterfield’s knowledge of fire hazards played a key role.
Outcome: Convicted and sentenced to 7 years in prison with a restitution order exceeding $1 million for damages.
Significance: Case illustrates how controlled burns can become criminal if poorly managed and affect federal property.
5. United States v. John Phillip Rynders (2020, Colorado)
Facts: Rynders intentionally set multiple wildfires during a drought in Colorado, some of which crossed into national forest land. He recorded videos of himself igniting fires.
Charges: Arson on federal land, endangering life, and property destruction.
Prosecution Argument: The government used video evidence, eyewitness reports, and fire investigators to link Rynders to several simultaneous fires.
Outcome: Convicted and sentenced to 30 years in federal prison; also ordered to pay $5 million in restitution.
Significance: Reinforced that evidence like video and digital tracking is pivotal in modern wildfire arson prosecutions.
Key Takeaways Across Cases
Intent vs. Negligence: Federal law prosecutes both deliberate arson and reckless fire-setting on protected lands.
Evidence: Modern prosecutions rely on satellite imagery, GPS tracking, witness statements, and digital evidence.
Severity: Sentences vary from fines and probation (for negligence) to multi-decade prison terms (for intentional arson with life-endangering consequences).
Restitution: Courts often order significant restitution for damage to federal lands and firefighting costs.
Legal Framework: 18 U.S.C. § 844(f) and state arson laws are commonly applied, especially when fires cross state or federal boundaries.
RELATED Blog
0 comments