
Let's See, That's Two Choppers at $5,000 Per Hour ...Can government rescuers send you a bill?
Posted Monday, Oct. 19, 2009, at 6:51 PM ET
The sheriff of Larimer County, Colo., announced Sunday that last week's balloon boy incident, which sent rescue workers scrambling across the state, was a hoax. The boy's parents will face criminal charges, and the state may seek payment for its efforts on their behalf. Can the government charge anyone for a search and rescue?
No. As a general rule, the United States adheres to the "free public services doctrine," which states that the cost of law enforcement, fire suppression, and search and rescue should be shared by all taxpayers. However, there are some situations in which the state can demand payment for a rescue operation from a particular person. Under federal and state restitution laws, for example, the victim of a crime can try to recover any costs that were incurred as a result of that crime. Since the Colorado government was itself the victim of the balloon boy hoax, the state can argue for restitution on those grounds. (The cost of a rescue involving aircraft can be tens, or even hundreds, of thousands of dollars.) The same principle holds true for wildfires, which led to a federal court fining a homeless man $101 million last year.
Permitting rescuers to sue those they save—for either the cost of their services or any injuries incurred during the rescue—has the twin benefits of deterring risky behavior and rewarding heroics. It also discourages people from calling for help when they need it. Courts and legislatures are constantly calibrating their treatment of rescuers to balance these effects. In a few Western states, where wilderness recreation necessitates more frequent search and rescue operations, the government is allowed to recover costs from people who commit even minor infractions, like wandering across ski resort boundaries. After a 1995 incident in which Oregon spent $10,000 searching for three climbers who weren't in peril but forgot their locator beacons, legislators passed a law enabling the state to collect up to $500 when "reasonable care was not exercised." If you're rescued from a closed wilderness area in California, you might get stuck with a bill of up to $12,000. New Hampshire bills up to $10,000 for those who "recklessly or intentionally create situations requiring an emergency response." And there's no limit to what the Hawaiian government might demand of someone who demonstrated intentional disregard for his own safety.
While these statutes are on the books, they're rarely used. Oregon is known to have sent out only one invoice since its law was passed. New Hampshire authorities, tired of picking fatigued climbers off Mount Washington, are the most aggressive in recovering costs. They sought $25,000 from a 17-year-old Eagle Scout this year, and the state has considered broadening its right to collect.
Got a question about today's news? Ask the Explainer.
Explainer thanks John F. Banzhaf III of George Washington University Law School and Jay E. Grenig of Marquette University Law School.
Slate Editors Spent All Day Arguing About Cancer Screenings and Health Care Rationing
What a Meal of Beef Stomach and Duck Throats Taught Me About the New China
The Blind Side: Illegal Use of Sandra Bullock
Train, Plane, or Automobile? What's the Greenest Way to Travel for Thanksgiving?
The Two Craziest Men in Hollywood Teamed Up To Make This Movie
Did Easy Rider's Predictions About America Come True?












Don't bill Mr Heene for the choppers.
He can't afford it. And his kids, who already live in marginal and unpleasant circumstances, are going to be victims again.
Remand him - and his "deer caught in the headlights" wife - for a psychiatric exam please, and put the kids in foster care in the meantime.
This guy has a screw loose. His wife appears to be under some sort of manson-esque spell. Probably not a healthy environment for kids.
Give the parents a drug test for good measure while we're at it.
There SHOULD be consequences for this sort of misbehavior. But the kids in more desperate and destitute circumstances shouldn't be the consequence.
-- baltimore aureole
(To reply, click here)
I disagree 100%. I don't care if they send him a bill that is interest free and put him on a payment plan of $25 a month until it's paid off, people need to understand that abuse of emergency systems is NEVER acceptable, and that should they choose to abuse such systems, there will possibly be both legal and financial ramifications. Writing that $25 check every month for the rest of his life (or however long it takes him) will be a nice reminder that his actions are not acceptable. Had a real emergency been going on, I wouldn't want people who actually needed help to get lesser help because some idiot wants publicity to get on a reality show. I agree that his children should not end up destitute because their dad is an idiot, but that doesn't let him off the hook for the great expense he has needlessly and fraudulently brought upon the state. Just my two cents.
-- JillyJ24
(To reply, click here)