By Kent Mallett, NewarkAdvocate.com:
Fire Chief Mark Huggins and Newark Auto Electric owner Ronald Lohr Jr. await a judge’s ruling on the city’s requirement of a key box for firefighters to gain entry into the business.
Newark Auto Electric, 357 S. 30th St., appealed the Board of Building Appeals’ 2-2 vote, which upheld the city’s mandate for installation of the key box to avoid forcing entry.
Both sides have filed their briefs, the latest Monday, and the case sits before Licking County Common Pleas Judge Thomas Marcelain.
The city had an ordinance since 1996 requiring all new commercial buildings to install the boxes, but the current plan will expand the requirement to all 500 new and existing Heath businesses not open 24 hours a day.
Firefighters open the box with a key, then retrieve the key to the business from inside the box. Lohr maintains the procedure violates his Fourth Amendment protections against illegal search and seizure.
“Forced entry to a premise during an emergency creates a risk to firefighters by subjecting them to the hazards associated with broken glass, splintered wood and the unknowns of entering a structure at a point other than one designed specifically for entrance,” the fire chief’s attorney, Jonathan Diernbach, said in the court filing.
The department does not need a key to gain entry and requiring a key box violates a business owner’s property rights, Lohr’s attorney, Dawn Manley, said in her Monday response to Diernbach’s argument.
“Due process does not allow the application of the key box provision to a pre-existing building which is not an immediate nuisance or safety threat,” Manley said.
Fire department officials, Manley said, said in the BBA hearing they could use the key to enter the business when there is not an obvious fire or threat to a person.
Diernbach disputed Manley’s interpretation of testimony from the hearing.
“Evidence heard by the BBA in this matter clearly indicated that the key box would only be used by firefighting personnel in the case of an emergency occurring at NAE property and would not be used for any other purpose.”
Lohr has said in case of fire, he prefers firefighters “break the door and do your job.”
Newark Auto Electric has been in business for 20 years without a single call to the fire department, Manley said.
“The likelihood of a structural fire at any one location is low, the likelihood of a firefighter getting injured is even lower, and the likelihood of firefighter injury from forced entry is minuscule,” Manley writes.
Also on STATter911 …
- Video: Two multi-alarm fires in Newark, New Jersey. – August 14, 2011
- Early raw video: Newark, New Jersey firefighters make multiple rescues from fire escapes at 3rd-alarm. – January 13, 2011
- Raw video: Newark, New Jersey house fire. – June 24, 2011
- Newark, New Jersey Mayor Cory Booker suffers smoke inhalation & burn helping rescue neighbor from house fire. Tweets about experience. – April 13, 2012
Comments
Powered by Facebook Comments
Knox Boxes have been used all over the country for years for access to buildings for fires, fire larms investigations, and allows us not to destroy doors and locks. What is the problem with this guy other than cost? Is he trying to hide something?
If this court case goes in favor of the business owner this may set in motion one giant leap backward for all fire departments using this system and devices for their safety, access, and information concerning a building or complex. The dinosaurs are still alive and well out there.
Forcible entry creates a hazard for firefighters? That’s a lame argument. Forcible entry is no problem. The store owner has the right to put locks on his doors and not provide keys. The fire dept can and should force those locks in an emergency to protect the public, but the store owner is fine with that – so what’s the problem?
We have knox boxes all over town here (as a convenience, as well as to save business owners door, glass, etc.) Forcing a business to install one is absurd. Forcing entry is one of the things we train for. If the business owner wants us to break down a door or bust a window in the event of an emergency, we will happily oblige.
I support the owners right to not install a keybox. He also has to realize that increased damage to his property is going to happen based on his decision. On the lighter side, as one who works on a truck company, I love property owners like this, it allows us to practice our trade.
That’s Newark, Ohio, not New Jersey!
Thank you. Had New Jersey on the mind. That’s where I was heading. I rushed the story on and missed the Licking County reference. Had to post quickly this morning while the wife wasn’t looking (heading to the in-laws). Now that I have battled the New Jersey Turnpike I have made the correction. Thanks for keeping me honest.
Statter
I’m not sure that the fire department has done a good job of explaining the process and protocol that most agencies have to go through to be able to access the knox box key to obtain entry.
It’s not as though they just pull a key off a key-ring in most cases. Our agency must request an access tone from our fire alarms office. This tone opens the lock box on the fire apparatus; the activity is logged. When the fire fighter returns the key to the compartment in the engine, that activity is logged and the compartment becomes locked.
There is no reason for fire personnel to access a building other than during an emergency or in the event of an alarm or suspected problem. Does this business owner want the firefighters to create hundreds (or thousands) of dollars of damage to a property because of an alarm drop? What if there is no problem inside? How can they determine that it is indeed a real fire or simply an alarm if they can’t get inside?
Is it worth the damages to determine that nothing is, indeed, wrong?
Alarm Bells … No Knox Box …
Goooood Training !!
“Is it worth the damages to determine that nothing is, indeed, wrong?”
That’s a judgment call for each property owner to decide. The fire department or local government should not force a property owner to provide a knox box in order to avoid that damage to their own property.
I could see a situation where an insurance company might demand such a thing – or they would not pay for damages that result from forcible entry. But that’s a financial or business issue, not a legal issue.
Well I’m torn. Not about the key box. I don’t think that government should dictate anything about the box. What I’m torn about is….do I tear the hell out of the front door to check the inside and have to get the police to watch same until the owner shows up, or, do I let the owner know that the FD won’t respond to a fire alarm but wait for a call from someone onsite and only hit it from the outside since the owner won’t provide the keys and we’re not sure how long it’s been burning.
In my area we specify dual lock cylinders (one for the building owner/occupant and one for the FD) The Knox box has two tamper switches, one activates when the door is opened and the other when the box is ripped from the wall it is mounted to. The tampers are wired to the building burgular system and if one doesn’t exist the Fire Alarm system (FD is not dispatched for a tamper signal owner notification) More important than the key is the contact info for the owner or representives, we required three names with phone numbers. Fires and alarm activation are only a few of the reasons FD repond to and require access to the building or its owner, water leaks, gas leak and vehicle impact are a few other. We require them on all new construction and request them on existing buildings. To my knowledge we never receive a report of unauthorized access to the key lock box or the building.
Knox Box key safe: $300
Keys to place in the Knox Box: $10-$15
Not having to cause thousands of dollars in damages gaining access: Priceless!
Knox Box key safe: $300 X 25 Buildings= $7,500
Plus additional keys = $100′s of dollars
Labor to order, get keys made and install= $1,000 or more
Why don’t we let the government dream up more ways to put
small business under~ I say break down the one or two doors
in the event of a fire….Note: we haven’t had a call in 20 years from the public safety.
We’ll just stay on task as usual trying to boost the economy!
In Seattle, we can require them (Knox Box) on multi-family residential structures and multi-occupancy commercial buildings, via the Fire Code enforcement procedure. Other types of occupancies are sometimes asked to install the Knox Boxes too.
However, some businesses either don’t want to pay for the device, or they have security concerns- and they usually indicate that they are OK with the Fire Department forcing entry when necessary. I believe that the individual business owners should have the right to refuse installation of the Knox Box. Just follow your department policy concerning access during automatic fire alarms.
A local business had an after hours water flow alarm go off and upon arrival we had water flowing out from under the doors. Even though our township requires all commercial businesses to have a Knox box, this building did not. We forced entry, found a sprinkler head had activated for no reason, and was flooding a stock storage room. Would you believe this business had the gall to send our department a nasty letter and a demand for the cost of fixing the front doors?? They said we should have waited 30 mins for a key holder to show up.
We pointed out to them they could/would be fined for not complying with the local ordinance, their multi-million dollar company had not once ever made a donation to our volunteer department despite having attended dozens of calls at their premises, and the fact that there was a high chance the sprinkler had activated for an actual fire and that we did in fact save thousands of dollars in stock by quickly shutting the sprinkler down. A knox box appeared within the week and we received a four figure donation after that.
Unfortunately this is the mentality of a large number of businesses who basically have no idea whatsoever of emergencies and risk management until it jumps up and bites them on the behind.
Minor story detail correction. The City involved with the mandatory Knox Box requirements is Heath Ohio even though the business is named Newark Auto Electric. Heath is contiguous with Newark Ohio.
All they have to do is make installing a knox box as a requirement for a business license. No knox box, no business license. No business licence, no business. Do business without license, go to jail. It usually covers the fly-by’s.
Do they do fire inspections of business occupancies in this jurisdiction? I would think that this is more of a violation of privacy than the knox box would ever be. We utilize the knox box system and all are rigs have the retention devices controlled by dispatch. All releases are logged and we have not had any issues. Maybe adding into the procedure “that dispatch will immediately notify the business owner/emergency contact when entry is made” will lessen apprehension. I think that this is a situation that can be resolved with proper education.
Otherwise, the opportunity to practice through-the-lock FE on bogus smells and bells will be greatly appreciated. I’m sure after a few sleep interruptions and money spent on the locksmith will change the business owner’s mind.
“The fire department or local government should not force a property owner to provide a knox box in order to avoid that damage to their own property”.
Then by all means we should no longer have fire sprinkler ordinances, or building code ordinances. After all we don’t need to “force” people to protect their property. While we are at it, we shouldn’t “force” people to wear seatbelts, or drive the speed limit.
It is an ordinance designed to limit property damage and still provide security. We cannot pick and choose which ordinance we wish to follow.
I am with the LT. from Seattle. We have similar policies and thousands of buildings without key boxes. If we need to get in, we get in. I disagree with the sprinkler/code comparison. A key box does not provide protection or reduce a hazard, just facilitates entry. The FD should not have used the safety card in this argument. If you cannot force a door without hurting your self, time to consider a career change.
People familiar with Newark, Ohio’s government snafus have every reason not to trust anyone with full access to their building, no matter what the claim is for wanting to have that access.
There are numerous concerns about what could be done to a business if someone had that type of access. Sure, there can be steps to stop bad govt. employees from abuse, but why should a store owner give up his rights at the will of the government. This should be a choice of the property owner.
Interesting. I, a small business man, have run into a similar situation. I'm in the county, and not within any city limits. However, the local ESD inspector came in and is 'requiring' some major implementations due to code, including the Knox box. I dug into the International Fire Code, County offices, and spoke with other Fire Chiefs (to get 3rd party opinions). I learned a lot, but the short of it is this. The fellow of this article should not have gone into a suit against the code. What he should have done is gone to the city council and brought up the concerns and gathered a band of citizen businesses together to protest section 506.1 within the code. One must understand, and it is stated in the Preface of the Code, that the Code alone is NOT a law and NOT enforceable. Not unless there is a legal acceptance of the Code, typically by a city legislation that enacts a law to adopt the building or fire codes for the city, area, or whatever. Then, and only then, is the Code enforcable. If the business owner goes to the city fathers and tells them that this section of the "International" Fire Code- which is being written by people world wide- including the commies- is not Constitutional, or is felt to go too far in violating rights to privacy, or security, then the City can vote to exclude this section of the Code, or, if they still like the concept to some degree, they can vote to amend the Code for the City to make section 506.1 voluntary only. That solves the problem. Simply adopting the code, as written, is the lazy way out for a city, so they don't have to sit around and write a whole new code- but when adopted, the Code is their own 'persona'l City Code, and they can make changes within it all they want- just like as is more commonly done with building codes. The text agreed to now belongs to them within their realm of control. They can change the text. If one wants to throw in a kicker, then, as a taxpayer, I would also not want my city, or county, to be liable for a mandatory box. In talking with my insurance company, the questions arise- if the Fire Dept security is breached, (and it will be one day as crooks now know the keys to the city lay within the Fire Dept- and even easier if the codes are kept on computers), who is responsible for a business loss due? The FD was responsible for keeping the keys safe. IF they fail in that responsibility, the City is now open for a major, or several major, lawsuits, as the insurance company will not be paying out for such occurrances- or for changing all the locks afterwards. The City becomes liable for my security. If the system is voluntary, then the responsibility is mine, as business owner, and I have to make adjustments with my insurance company for it, and they now are responsible- if they accept the know box being on my building. My insurance company does not want me to accept the box at this time. I don't either, simply due to the principal of the thing (government having keys to my door) and for my personal feeling of safety. If I were to try, they want the names of the 3 individuals who have access, background checks on them all, financial statements (bribe risks), and who their insurance carrier is- and proof of adequate insurance to cover such an occurance. I would think the liability aspect alone would be enough to scare a city away from making 506.1 mandatory.
Now that we seem to be going "International" on things like Codes- the cities and counties will now have to do full review and actually read the whole code before just robo-stamping them into law. I still think the US needs to maintain a US based National Fire Code,- which weeds out the things like this. Otherwise, it's up to 'we the people' to keep our legislators straight on our rights. Note the Code also states that anything within the Code that violates any Country's Constitutional rights, is also not enforcible.
Having delt with 3rd party Safety in Electrtical design for 14 years, I learned this- don't get mad, just sit down and read the Code for yourself, and you will usually find your answer. If you are challenged, then demand what Code, Title, and Section you are claimed to be violating- that will slow them down as they now have to go work and read. Most people hate to read. How many of you who have been challenged had the challenger show up with a Code book in hand? I can tell you this, I had none: ever. But, I always showed up at the meetings with Code book in hand, and never lost a Code conflict once. Don't give me opinions, give me Code, Title, and Section. Most talk is worthless without the Code present.
This Diernbach fellow sounds like a real asshole.