RAYMOND HAMLIN AND APPALACHIAN INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
LEROY LYNN, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this tort case involving a false arrest, the court held that a sheriff and his surety are liable for damages when deputies arrested the plaintiff for a felony without probable cause, finding this constituted an abuse of power arising from office rather than a usurpation of power.
The court held that appellants are liable because the deputies abused the power to arrest without a warrant for a felony, which is a power that exists under Florida Statutes § 901.15(2) only when a felony 'has been committed.' The abuse of power arising by virtue of office creates liability for the sheriff and surety.
[1] A sheriff and surety are liable for damages incurred when deputies make an arrest for a felony without probable cause if the act constitutes an abuse of power arising by…
[2] An arrest without a warrant for a felony, when the felony has not been committed, constitutes an abuse of power arising by virtue of office.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The issue is whether such an act involves an abuse of power which arises by virtue of office or a usurpation of power which arises under col- or of office. The latter absolves the sheriff's office of liability for the acts of the deputies. The former does not.”
Establishes the controlling legal distinction that determines sheriff liability
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDeputies arrested Raymond Lynn for a felony without having probable cause to believe he had committed the felony. The sheriff and his surety (Appalach…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Assault And Battery cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellants contend, inter alia, that it was error to hold the sheriff and his surety liable for appellee’s damages incurred when deputies made an arrest for a felony without having probable cause to believe appel-lee had committed the felony. The issue is whether such an act involves an abuse of power which arises by virtue of office or a usurpation of power which arises under col-or of office. The latter absolves the sheriff’s office of liability for the acts of the deputies. The former does not. We hold appellants are liable. The deputies abused the power to arrest without a warrant for a felony which “has been committed.” § 901.15(2), Florida Statutes (1975). We think Mendez v. Blackburn, 226 So. 2d 340 (Fla.1969) is analogous. There, the petitioners claimed damages for false arrest, malicious prosecution, and assault and battery by two deputies who had undertaken to arrest Mendez for committing a felony in their presence. The court found an inference of an abuse of power precluding summary judgment, to wit: “the power to make an arrest without a warrant for a felony being committed in the officers’ presence.” 226 So. 2d at 344.
Malone v. Howell, 140 Fla. 693, 192 So. 224 (1939), is distinguishable. There, the police attempted an arrest without a warrant for a misdemeanor, when no misdemeanor was committed in the presence of the officers. The law did not authorize this type of arrest. Also, Goodrich v. Lawrence, 138 Fla. 287, 189 So. 233 (1939), cited by appellants, is distinguishable. It involved a wrongful act of a deputy which was a completely independent, personal act totally unrelated to any responsibility arising by virtue of office. See Goodrich explained in Mendez, supra, at 343. The other points raised do not merit discussion.
Affirmed.
ERVIN and SHAW, JJ., and MELVIN, WOODROW M. (Retired), Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Ada Malone v. Howell, 140 Fla. 693 (Fla. 1939)
- Goodrich v. Lawrence, 138 Fla. 287 (Fla. 1939)
- Thompson v. M R & R Trucking Co. & the Fla. Indus. Comm'n, 226 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 1969)