Jim:

Admittedly, the US DOJ used the word benchmark, but they meant to imply a standard of care, and here is how they say to process a fire scene:

Identify Resources Required to
Process the Scene

Principle: The investigator should recognize limitations of his
or her own expertise and knowledge and determine
what personnel may be required to process the scene
according to NFPA 921 and other recognized national
guidelines. Except in the most obvious cases, the determination
of a fire’s origin and cause may be a complex
and difficult undertaking that requires specialized
training and experience as well as knowledge of generally
accepted scientific methods of fire investigation.
The investigator must either have appropriate expertise
or call upon the assistance of someone with that knowledge.
This is especially true in cases involving deaths,
major injuries, or large property losses.

Procedure: Based on the preliminary scene assessment and analysis
of fire patterns and damage at the scene, the investigator
should:

A. Identify a distinct origin (location where the fire started) and
an obvious fire cause (ignition source, first fuel ignited, and
circumstances of the event that brought the two together). If
neither the origin nor the cause is immediately obvious, or if there
is clear evidence of an incendiary cause, the investigator should
conduct a scene examination in accordance with NFPA 921 and
other recognized national guidelines or seek someone with the
expertise required.

As for Court cases, you know that numerous courts have recognized NFPA 921 as the standard of care in their rulings. The issue that people have asked the courts to rule on is not (nor will it ever be) what is the standard of care, but whether an investigator complied with it. Many of the rulings previously cited in this forum include an analysis of whether the challenged investigator followed 921. Those that followed it were allowed to testify. Those that deviated significantly from 921 saw their testimony excluded. The discussions in the opinions are actually pretty explicit on the subject. There is a huge body of law on this subject because of Daubert challenges. If you want to believe that 921 has not been recognized as the standard of care, that is your right. But you're wrong.

I should have an article on the subject ready for submission in a few weeks. You were my inspiration. I'll send you the draft when its's done.

John Lentini, CFI, D-ABC
Fire Investigation Consultant
Florida Keys
[www.firescientist.com]