Blocker v. Clark

• Decision Date: 13 August 1906
• Parties: BLOCKER v. CLARK, Sheriff.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

54 S.E. 1022

126 Ga. 484

BLOCKER v. CLARK, Sheriff.

Supreme Court of Georgia

August 13, 1906

Syllabus by the Court.

Where a valid warrant is placed in the hands of an arresting officer and there are two persons bearing the name appearing in the warrant, the officer must make diligent inquiry as to the person intended to be arrested, and if, after such inquiry the officer in good faith arrests a person of that name whom he honestly believes to be the person named in the warrant he will not be liable in an action for false imprisonment founded on the mere fact of arrest, even though the person arrested be innocent of the charge and not the person for whom the warrant issued. If, however, after such arrest information reaches the officer that a mistake has been made, and the person arrested is not the person for whom the warrant issued, and the officer thereafter detain such person in custody, he will be liable in an action for false imprisonment for such detention.

When an officer arrests a person under a warrant, the law charges him with the duty of carrying, with reasonable diligence, the person arrested before a committing magistrate; but the officer will not be liable to the person arrested for a breach of this duty when the delay is occasioned by the conduct of the person arrested.

In the trial of an action against an officer for false imprisonment, upon the ground that the plaintiff who bore the name stated in the warrant was not the person for whom the warrant issued, it is not necessary to the maintenance of the action that it should appear that the officer made the arrest "out of spite" or "a reckless disregard for the rights and liberties of the citizen." In such case, if the officer act in good faith, he is protected; but good faith may be negatived in other ways than by proof of spite or recklessness. The mere want of ordinary care is, in some circumstances, inconsistent with good faith.

Error from City Court of Richmond County; W. F. Eve, Judge.

Action by Charles Blocker against J. W. Clark, sheriff. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed.

Where a valid warrant is placed in the hands of an arresting officer, and there are two persons bearing the same name, the officer must make diligent inquiry as to the person intended to be arrested, and if in good faith he arrests the person of that name whom he believes to be the person named in the warrant, he is not liable for false imprisonment, though the person arrested be not the person for whom the warrant issued.

Charles Blocker brought his action against John W. Clark, alleging that the defendant was the sheriff of Richmond county; that H. C. Hall made an affidavit that Charles Blocker had committed the offense of simple larceny, and on this affidavit a warrant was issued for the arrest of Charles Blocker and placed in the hands of Clark, and by him turned over to his deputy for execution. On the warrant appeared the following memoranda: "Weighs about 160 pounds; brown skin; five feet ten inches, farm hand; lives in Tutt's Extension, on Woodlawn Road." On this warrant the deputy arrested the plaintiff. At the time of the arrest the plaintiff denied that he had committed the offense charged in the warrant, and protested that he was not the person for whom the warrant was issued. Notwithstanding this denial and protest, plaintiff was taken into custody, and the deputy refused to carry him before a judicial officer, but lodged him in jail, where he remained for four days. It is alleged that the plaintiff did not answer the description set forth in the memoranda, in that he was 6 feet 3 inches high, and was distinctly black, that he had not worked on a farm for 10 years or more, but worked as a fireman for an oil company in the city of Augusta, and that he did not live and had never lived in Tutt's Extension, but in the city of Augusta some distance from that place, Tutt's Extension being outside the city, in the village of Harrisonville, about a half a mile distant from his place of residence. Upon being released from jail plaintiff reported to his employer, who told him that his place had been filled, as he thought he had gone to the chain-gang. He had been unable to secure work as remunerative as that which he had at the time of his arrest. Damages were laid in the sum of $500. The defendant filed an answer, in which he admitted that the arrest had been made by his deputy, but denied that the defendant protested his innocence, etc. The statement as to the remark of his former employer was also denied. The answer further alleged that it was the duty of the defendant to execute all legal warrants placed in his hands, and that the warrant was in all respects regular. He placed it in the hands of his deputy, and the plaintiff bore the same name as the person charged in the warrant, and the deputy making the arrest acted in good faith and with reasonable diligence and caution. The answer contained this allegation: "After arresting him it was the duty of the arresting officer to imprison him, unless he requested to be carried before a judicial officer. He made no such request. In taking plaintiff to jail said deputy sheriff conformed to the usual practice in such cases, taking steps to prevent the escape of the prisoner but treating him with humanity in all respects, consistent with the officer's duty to keep him safely. After plaintiff was safely lodged in jail, defendant or his said deputy had no other duty to perform in reference to him. It was then for the plaintiff, who knew the law, to take steps to be brought before a judicial officer and be released." A copy of the affidavit and warrant, with the entry of arrest was attached to the answer as an exhibit. At the trial the jury returned a verdict for the defendant, and the plaintiff assigns error upon the overruling of his motion for a new trial.

Wm. H. Fleming, for plaintiff in error.

Jos. B. & Bryan Cumming and G. M. Beasley, for defendant in error.

COBB, P.J. (after stating the foregoing facts).

1. It is absolutely essential to the validity of a warrant that the person to be arrested should be identified by the terms of the warrant. The usual method of identifying the person to be arrested is by the insertion therein of his name. It is not however, indispensable that the name of the person to be arrested should appear in the warrant, for a warrant may be valid although it may not contain the name of the person whose arrest is directed. But if the warrant does not contain the name it must contain sufficient data to identify the person to be arrested thereunder. This may be done by stating his occupation, his personal appearance, peculiarities, place of residence, or other means of identification. When, however, the warrant contains the name of the...