I am not really questioning the experience of the private investigator or the protocol of the State K9 Handler, as the handler stated he could not come out at the request of the private investigator. The investigator convinced the local jurisdiction to call the K9 handler back out.

There is value in using K9's on scenes, as opposed to eyeballing where to take a sample or even taking the time to run a sniffer over an entire scene. Sniffers are not near as effective as K9's.

Most of the investigators we work with don't necessarily call us out thinking the fire was set using an ignitable liquid. They call us out to help locate ignitable liquids (content fuels or accelerants) and to help them eliminate their presence throughout the loss site.

I am questioning whether or not a private investigator, working for the insurance company or an attorney, should be using a government resource provided by the tax payers to supplement their investigation at no cost?

I will put it another way... We have a State Lab here in Texas, provided by the tax payers. A lab where public fire investigators send their samples for analysis at no charge. I don't see any private investigators sending their samples to this state lab for analysis because it's free. If they did, I believe the state and the private investigator would be working hand-in-hand. Does anyone think this would be ok? I just see some real issues with this and I see no difference in the two scenarios above.

Darle L. McClintock
Vector Investigative Services
dlmcclintock@vectorinvestigations.com