Yeatts v. Minton

• Decision Date: 30 November 1970
• Citation: 177 S.E.2d 646,211 Va. 402
• Parties: Cecil G. YEATTS v. Richard A. MINTON.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

Page 646

177 S.E.2d 646

211 Va. 402

Cecil G. YEATTS v. Richard A. MINTON.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

Nov. 30, 1970.

Reno S. Harp, III, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Nathan H. Smith, J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Sands, Anderson, Marks & Clarke, Richmond, on brief), for plaintiff in error.

W. Park Lemmond, Jr., Hopewell (Stokes & Lemmond, Hopewell, on brief), for defendant in error.

Before SNEAD, C.J., and I'ANSON, CARRICO, GORDON, HARRISON, COCHRAN and HARMAN, JJ.

GORDON, Justice.

Plaintiff Richard A. Minton brought this action against defendant Cecil G. Yeatts for false imprisonment. Yeatts appeals from an adverse judgment for $700, entered on a jury verdict. The question is whether the evidence supports the verdict.

On December 2, 1967, Yeatts, a resident of Chesterfield County who is regularly employed in Richmond, was on duty as a special game warden in Charles City County. The regular game warden, who was ill, had instructed Yeatts to watch for persons 'jacklighting deer' ¹ on a farm known as the 'academy' because the farm manager had asked the warden to keep the farm under surveillance. So Yeatts parked his vehicle at a point overlooking a large field on the farm.

At about 8:30 p.m., more than two and a half hours after sunset, Yeatts saw a truck driving slowly through the field, apparently proceeding along a rutted dirt road. The truck turned from time to time so that its headlights shone across the field. Yeatts knew that deer frequented the area; he had often seen deer in the field and along the dirt road.

Yeatts drove his vehicle to a grain barn on the academy property where the truck had stopped after crossing the field. When Yeatts stopped behind the truck and turned on his flashing lights, the driver of the truck alighted and walked toward Yeatts. The driver wore two-ply cotton work shirt and trousers and leather bedroom shoes. He was a stranger to Yeatts.

Yeatts, who was wearing a game warden's uniform and badge, asked the driver of the truck, '(w)hat are you doing over here shining your lights over the field hunting deer'. He answered that he was the caretaker of the property and was merely attending to his chores.

In the cab of the truck Yeatts found a shotgun with one number 8 shell in the chamber and one in the magazine. A bird dog and a puppy were in the truck.

Yeatts asked the driver of the truck for identification, but he did not have a driver's or hunting license or any other means of identification on his person. Yeatts then told the driver to come with him. Pointing to his 'patched pants' and 'bedroom shoes', the driver protested 'rid(ing) over the country dressed like that'. He also demurred at leaving the puppy in the truck. The driver of the truck asked that Yeatts accompany him to his home so that his wife might identify him, or that Yeatts accompany him to a telephone he said was in a vacant house near the barn.

Instead, Yeatts took the suspect to the game warden's house, where he was identified as Richard A. Minton, the manager of the academy property. Yeatts then returned Minton to his truck at the barn, where they parted company. Shortly thereafter Minton brought this action against Yeatts for false imprisonment.

We will assume that Yeatts arrested Minton when he told Minton to come with him. The facts known to Yeatts at that time, as we have stated them, are not contradicted. Yeatts did not then know that the person he arrested was the manager of the academy property, much less that this was the person who had asked the game warden to keep the property under surveillance. And Yeatts did not know that this person had crossed the field and stopped at the grain barn to get feed for horses, or that this person had a shotgun and dogs with him because he had been hunting birds during the day.

Jacklighting deer is made a misdemeanor under each of the following statutes:

' § 29--144.2. Killing deer or elk by use of certain lights; acts raising presumption of attempt to kill.--Any person who kills or attempts to kill any deer or elk between a half hour after sunset on any day and a half hour before sunrise the following day by use of a light attached to any vehicle or a spotlight or flashlight shall be guilty of a misdemeanor * * *. The flashing of a light attached to any vehicle or a spotlight or flashlight from any vehicle between a half hour after sunset on any day and a half hour before sunrise the following day by any person or persons, then in possession of a rifle, shotgun, crossbow, or bow and arrow or speargun, without good cause, shall raise a presumption of an attempt to kill deer or elk in violation of this section. * * *'

Va.Code Ann. § 29--144.2 (1969).

' § 29--144.4. Employment of lights under certain circumstances upon places used by deer or elk.--Any person in any vehicle and then in possession of any rifle, shotgun, crossbow, bow and arrow or speargun who, between a half hour after sunset on any day and a half hour before sunrise the following day, employs a light attached to such vehicle or a spotlight or flashlight to cast a light beyond the water or surface of the roadway upon any place used by deer or elk shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. * * *'

Va.Code Ann. § 29--144.4 (1969).

Under Code § 29--32, a game warden is empowered, upon displaying his badge, 'to arrest any person found in the act of violating' either statute. So in enforcing the game laws, a game warden has the same authority conferred upon a police officer to arrest a person who commits a misdemeanor in his presence, Jordan v. Commonwealth, 207 Va. 591, 151 S.E.2d 390 (1966); Byrd v. Commonwealth, 158 Va. 897, 164 S.E. 400 (1932).

An officer has the duty to arrest a person who commits a misdemeanor in his presence, even though the officer has no arrest warrant. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co. v. Haun, 167 Va. 157, 164, 187 S.E. 481, 484 (1936). And an arrest, though warrantless, is valid where the officer had probable cause to believe that a misdemeanor was committed in his presence, even though the action he observed did not in fact constitute a misdemeanor. Miller v. State, 462 P.2d 421 (Alas.1969); United States v. Cumberland, 262 A.2d 341 (D.C.App.1970); Prosser v. Parsons, 245 S.C. 493, 141 S.E.2d 342 (1965); State ex rel. Verdis v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of N.Y., 120 W.Va. 593, 199 S.E. 884 (1938); See Call v. United States, 417 F.2d 462 (9th Cir. 1969); United States v. Pizzarello, 386 F.2d 177 (2d Cir. 1967); Stephens v. Lindsey, 304 F.Supp. 203 (S.D....