When a fire breaks out and investigators find evidence of accelerants—such as gasoline or lighter fluid—many people assume that arson has taken place. However, in Indiana, the mere presence of an accelerant does not automatically prove that someone intentionally set a fire. Arson is a serious criminal charge, and the prosecution must prove intent, not just that an accelerant was present.
Accelerants can be found in many everyday places. Gasoline is stored in garages. Cleaning supplies contain chemicals that can burn quickly. Even some building materials and furniture release flammable vapors. Because of this, investigators must go beyond identifying accelerants to show that someone deliberately used them to start a fire.
Making – or breaking – a prosecutorial case
In an arson case, prosecutors must prove that the fire in question was intentionally set, that the accused started it or helped start it, and that the fire was not caused by accident or natural events. They also must prove that the defendant had a motive or connection to the scene. Simply finding traces of an accelerant, without more, is not enough to meet this burden of proof.
Fire scenes are complex, and the investigation process can be flawed. High heat, water from firefighting efforts and structural collapse can all damage evidence. Investigators may also misinterpret signs of accidental fire as signs of arson. For example, burn patterns that look suspicious may have natural explanations, and chemical residues may be left behind by everyday products, not criminal actions.
Defense attorneys often work with fire experts to challenge the prosecution’s findings. These experts can examine how the fire behaved, how evidence was collected, and whether the presence of an accelerant truly supports an arson claim. In some cases, they can show that a fire was likely accidental or that the investigation relied too heavily on assumptions rather than solid science.
At the end of the day, the presence of an accelerant may raise questions—but it does not automatically prove guilt.