Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Emergency Scene Access topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Baltimore committee hears bill to bar unauthorized people from active emergency scenes
Summary
Baltimore City Council Public Safety Committee heard testimony on proposed ordinance 25-00018 that would create an exclusion zone at emergency scenes and prohibit unauthorized people from entering; supporters say it protects traumatized residents and first responders, while restoration companies and public adjusters say it will delay needed work.
The Baltimore City Public Safety Committee on Feb. 10, 2025, heard testimony on proposed ordinance 25-00018, which would allow a fire chief or the chief’s designee to establish an emergency scene boundary and prohibit unauthorized persons from entering while first responders operate.
Councilwoman Ramos, sponsor of the bill, told the committee the measure aims to protect residents and allow first responders to work without interruption. "What this bill does is it establishes a very defined emergency scene," Ramos said, describing the boundary as tape or another type of barricade and listing who would be allowed inside it.
The proposal would explicitly permit first responders, survivors and family members, Department of Housing and Community Development personnel, and city officials to be inside the marked area; it would also give the fire chief discretion to leave barriers in place after the fire if public safety hazards remain. "The fire department really has 3 main points we have to address on any incident. It's life safety, property, preservation of the environment," said Chief James Wallace of the Baltimore City Fire Department, endorsing the bill and describing the department’s need to maintain control over an incident footprint.
Supporters said the rule is intended to prevent aggressive solicitation and pressure on residents directly after a fire. Delegate Ampri, who joined virtually and said he has seen fires in his neighborhood, urged the committee to report the bill favorably and described efforts in Annapolis to allow a rescission period for contracts signed under trauma.
Restoration companies, public adjusters and some former fire officials opposed or urged caution. William Carabares, owner of Platinum Emergency Services, said restricting in-person access will delay mitigation work that prevents additional damage: "Immediate mitigation is the only thing that can prevent irreversible damage and financial loss," he said. Several other vendors and public adjusters said insurance contracts often require immediate mitigation and that delay can jeopardize coverage.
Witnesses described competing harms: committee members and the fire chief emphasized safety and accountability of the scene; mitigation contractors and adjusters emphasized time-sensitive work, board-up and tarping requirements, and risks of looting and mold if action is delayed. Resident testimony recounted pressure and aggressive solicitation at scenes. Jeremy Olsen, a resident who lost his home in October 2024, said, "I remember a gentleman hovering over my wife with a card in her face," describing the distress of being solicited while the house was still burning.
Administration amendments discussed at the hearing would (1) replace the phrase "caution tape" with the broader term "barricade tape," (2) clarify that the fire chief or the chief’s designee may leave boundaries in place if a public safety hazard remains after investigation, and (3) remove an explicit mention of the American Red Cross from the narrow list of authorized organizations so the ordinance does not appear to recognize only one external partner.
Committee members asked agencies to consider narrower or tiered administrative protocols—such as allowing subject-matter experts or volunteer organizations to enter where they clearly assist firefighting or stabilization—and sought clarity about how family members would be handled and how noncompliance would be recorded and enforced. Chief Wallace said incident commanders document notable interactions in the fire report narrative and may request police assistance for enforcement.
No vote was taken; the committee recessed and said it will continue to consider amendments. Council members and agency staff indicated they will work on language to preserve incident-command discretion while addressing concerns about immediate solicitation and the need for timely mitigation.
Supporters and critics asked that protections for homeowners, limits on coercive sales practices, and enforcement mechanics (including whether fines are an effective deterrent) be clarified in amendments or through parallel state-level action on contracting and adjuster rules.
