Laster v. Chaney

• Decision Date: 13 December 1937
• Docket Number: 32932
• Citation: 177 So. 524,180 Miss. 110
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: LASTER v. CHANEY et al

177 So. 524

180 Miss. 110

LASTER v. CHANEY et al

No. 32932

Supreme Court of Mississippi

December 13, 1937

Division B

1 ARREST.

An officer making an arrest without warrant on suspicion of felony may act upon telephonic information furnished him by a credible person, known to him as such, but the information must at least be sufficient in its factual statement to justify officer in believing that a felony has been committed and that there is good factual reason to definitely suspect that the party arrested, or to be arrested, is the felon.

2 ARREST.

Where informant telephoned sheriff requesting sheriff to arrest and detain occupant of automobile, giving make and license number and that information as to reason for the arrest and detention would be given later, arrest by sheriff and his deputy was unauthorized.

3 ARREST.

Where information furnished to sheriff by party requesting plaintiff's arrest was not sufficient to justify arrest that officers on stopping plaintiff found that shot had passed through wind shield of plaintiff's automobile did not justify arrest where plaintiff furnished full information as to residence, employment, and purposes, and officers had nothing before them to the contrary.

4. FALSE IMPRISONMENT. Sheriffs and constables.

Where informant required sheriff to arrest plaintiff with sole additional statement that reason therefor would be furnished to officers later, sheriff and deputy stopped plaintiff and noticed that shot had passed through windshield, and arrested plaintiff although he had given full information as to his residence, employment, and purposes, in action against officers and sheriff's surety, plaintiff was entitled to peremptory instruction on issue of liability and to instruction properly drawn on issue of punitive damages.

5. FALSE IMPRISONMENT.

When an arrest has been made by sheriff and his deputy and an imprisonment imposed, and admitted facts show no legal grounds therefor, jury should be permitted to say whether the conduct of officers has been characterized by such gross wrong as to evince a wanton or willful disregard of the rights of others, and, if so, to administer a corrective by way of smart money.

HON. S. F. DAVIS, Judge.

APPEAL from the circuit court of Washington county HON. S. F. DAVIS, Judge.

Action by J. W. Laster against R. P. Chaney, one Stone, and others. Judgment was rendered for plaintiff against defendant Stone, and, from verdict and judgment for the other defendants, plaintiff appeals. Judgment appealed from reversed, and cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Percy Bell, of Greenville, for appellant.

Mississippi Code of 1930, section 1227, provides when arrests may be made without a warrant, and reads as follows: "Arrests--when made without warrant.--An officer or private person may arrest any person withont warrant, for an indictable offense committed, or a breach of the peace threatened or attempted in his presence; or when a person has committed a felony, though not in his presence felony, though not in his presence; or when a felony has been committed, and he has reasonable ground to suspect and believe the person proposed to be arrested to have committed it; or on a charge, made upon reasonable cause, of the commission of a felony by the party proposed to be arrested. And in all eases of arrests without warrant, the person making such arrest must inform the accused of the object and cause of the arrest, except when he is in the actual commission of the offense, or is arrested on pursuit."

It will be observed by the court that the present arrest does not fall within any of the provisions of the code. There was no offense committed in the presence of the sheriff nor had Mr. Laster committed any felony nor was there any proof that a felony had been committed or that the sheriff had any ground to suspect Laster of commitring one nor had there been any charge made to the sheriff of the commission of a felony by Laster. On the contrary, no arrest could have been more wanton or more unjustified than the arrest of this boy, but not content with the false arrest the sheriff imprisoned him in the county jail without a warrant or any cause.

In King v. State, 113 So. 173, 147 Miss. 31, the principle is laid down that an officer undertaking to act on probable cause without a warrant must have information convincing the court that it amounts to probable cause and that probable cause is a judicial question and that the judgment of the officer as to probable cause is not conclusive.

We submit that there was no probable cause whatever in this case and that the court erred therefore in refusing the peremptory instruction asked by the appellant, for such refusal necessarily implied that the court believed that the sheriff had probable cause.

Our statute affirms the common law as to arrest without warrants.

Kennington-Saenger, Inc., v. Wicks, 151 So. 549, 168 Miss. 566; Vice v. Holley, 41 So. 7, 88 Miss. 572.

Instruction No. two was a repetition of the peremptory instruction with the addition of an authorization of punitive damages. We submit that the instruction should have been granted. There had been no justification for the arrest or detention and we submit that if the jury believed such detention was in wanton disregard of the appellant's rights that punitive damages were proper and that the question of their being in wanton disregard should have been submitted to the jury.

25 C. J., page 548, pars. 157-159, page 551, par. 161, page 554, note (a), page 563, par. 178, page 564, note (a).

The jury evidently disregarded both the facts and the law because under the facts and the law as stated there was no escaping liability on the part of the sheriff.

Ernest Kellner, of Greenville, for appellees.

If the appellee, R. P. Chaney, sheriff, was not justified in the arrest of the appellant upon the information that the appellant was a cattle thief and was fleeing from the scene of the crime communicated to him by a reputable citizen, as testified to by the appellant himself, then it seems to me that there are no circumstances under which a peace officer can be justified in making an arrest without a warrant unless the crime is committed in his presence. As this court knows, the common law rule as to an arrest without a warrant by a peace officer is more liberal than as to such arrest by private individuals.

4 Am. Juris., pages 24 and 25.

The rule is stated as follows in 4 American Jurisprudence, page 18: "He (Peace Officer) may arrest any person whom he, upon reasonable grounds, believes has committed a felony even though it afterwards appears that no felony was actually perpetrated."

Orick v. State, 140 Miss. 184; Kennedy v. State, 139 Miss. 579.

Laying aside the information communicated to the appellee, R. P Chaney, sheriff, by the appellee, E. W. Stone, that the appellant was a cattle thief and fleeing from the scene of the crime, as testified to by the appellant, and applying the foregoing rule that a peace officer may arrest any person whom he, upon reasonable grounds, believes has committed a felony even though no felony had been committed, it seems to me that after the appellee, R. P. Chancy, sheriff, stopped the appellant on the highway and learned from the appellant that he had been in contact with the appellee, E. W. Stone, and that there had been a shooting of some kind, the appellee, R. F. Chancy, sheriff, not...