A federal magistrate judge in Texas has recommended dismissal of a civil rights lawsuit arising out of a January 2023 response to reported fires on private property while a county burn ban was in effect. The plaintiff, William Lawrence Nash, alleged that sheriff’s deputies and members of the Hunt Volunteer Fire Department unlawfully entered his property to investigate fires that he contended had been safely controlled and extinguished.

The landowner, William Lawrence Nash, filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against a Kerr County sheriff’s deputy, several unidentified deputies, several unidentified volunteer firefighters, and an unidentified detective arising out of what he claimed as a controlled burn conducted on his property in January 2023. According to the complaint, Nash had conducted a series of small burns in stock tanks on his property and believed the fires had been safely extinguished. After a neighbor reported a fire, Deputy Victoria Young responded to investigate.

Nash alleged that he explained the controlled burn to Deputy Young and invited her to inspect the burn area, but only on foot because of the steep terrain leading into Raven Canyon. He also refused to put the fires out, prompting Deputy Young to summon the fire department.

Concerned that emergency vehicles might attempt to descend the canyon trail, Nash parked his truck across the trail entrance. He later learned that sheriff’s deputies and members of the Hunt Volunteer Fire Department entered the property and descended into the canyon to inspect the burn area.

Nash was issued a citation for violating the burn ban, and paid a $333 fine. Unbeknownst to Nash, Deputy Young filed a probable cause affidavit for his arrest for interference with public duties. Months later he was arrested and charged. However, in the interim, Nash filed an internal affairs complaint about deputies going on his property.

After the criminal charges were dismissed, Nash filed suit claiming the entry violated his Fourth Amendment rights because it occurred without a warrant, consent, or exigent circumstances. He further alleged that after he filed a complaint against the deputies, he was arrested and prosecuted in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment right to petition government for a redress of his grievances.  

The firefighter defendants, along with the other unidentified defendants, were later dismissed from the case after they were not timely served with process. As a result, Deputy Young became the sole remaining defendant.  

In recommending summary judgment for Deputy Young, the magistrate judge relied heavily on the reasoning set forth in the Supreme Court’s well known decision in Michigan v. Tyler, which recognized that the existence of a fire creates exigent circumstances permitting warrantless entry onto private property. The court noted that firefighters may enter property to combat a fire and may remain for a reasonable time afterward to investigate the cause of the fire and determine whether any continuing danger exists.  

Applying Tyler, the court found that Deputy Young was responding to a report of a burn-ban violation, personally observed smoke rising from the canyon, and received Nash’s admission that he had set the fires. The court further noted that daylight was fading, the terrain was difficult, and Deputy Young could not determine from her vantage point whether the fires remained active or posed a threat to neighboring properties. Under those circumstances, the court concluded that probable cause and exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry and inspection of the burn area by law enforcement and fire personnel.  

Body camera footage reviewed by the court showed that deputies and a volunteer firefighter hiked into the canyon, where they found several burn sites, most of them smoldering and some still containing active flames. After assessing the situation, fire personnel determined that no active threat existed and left the property. The court concluded that the entry and inspection were consistent with the authority recognized in Michigan v. Tyler and recommended dismissal of Nash’s Fourth Amendment claims.  

The court also recommended dismissal of Nash’s retaliation and unlawful-arrest claims, finding that Deputy Young was entitled to qualified immunity on all claims. Here is a copy of the decision. Below that is the original complaint.