Firefighters put out a fire in the Clifford residence and left the scene. Hours later, after the Cliffords had begun to secure the premises, investigators arrived to investigate the possibility of arson. They searched the whole house and took several pieces of evidence. The Cliffords were charged with arson. Their attorney moved to suppress all the evidence seized in the search. In 1984, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Cliffords and disallowed this evidence. A majority of five Justices ruled not to allow the search. Four issued a plurality opinion that would have allowed a search with an administrative search warrant. Justice Stevens wrote an opinion that would allow a search only with a traditional search warrant. The dissenting opinion would have upheld the search. All the Justices would allow the following actions: the initial entry to fight the fire, the seizure of evidence found in plain view at this time, and reentry pursuant to a consent granted by the occupant. They would allow reentry as a continuation of the original entry to fight the fire, given the right circumstances, although they disagree about the circumstances. They would require a traditional search warrant to gather evidence for a criminal prosecution. However, the lack of agreement among the Justices on the overall opinion, the use of vague terms, and the failure to answer a number of questions assure continued litigation and appeal of many fire investigation issues. A guide to help organizations develop a standard operating procedure in view of the Clifford decision is included. A discussion of Canadian experience in this area, 14 footnotes, and five references are appended.