Encounter Between Hunters and Landowner Turns Sour

January 31, 2011 | Erin Herbold

Iowa Code §481A.125 deals with the intentional interference with lawful hunting activities in Iowa and imposes misdemeanor penalties for violations.  In this case, a landowner who had previously been charged for allegedly shooting a handgun at a group of hunters in 2000, found himself in a similar situation with the same group nearly six years later. In 2006, an eleven-member hunting party had permission to hunt on the land adjacent to the plaintiff. While the landowner was doing morning farm chores, he allegedly saw a hunter (his neighbor) climb the fence and enter onto his land. The hunters heard gunshots and assumed it was the landowner shooting at them. The hunters called 911 several times and informed the dispatcher that the shots came from a small firearm like the one owned by the landowner.

The hunters followed the landowner into his driveway and pulled up behind him in pickup trucks.  One of the hunters, a sheriff’s deputy, approached the landowner. The accounts of what happened next are a bit different- the landowner testified that the sheriff’s deputy stated that he was on “special assignment” for the county and that the landowner should not leave his property. According to the landowner, the deputy began to act aggressively towards him. This account is juxtaposed against the account of the hunters and deputy who believed his was acting in his capacity as an officer of the peace.  Another sheriff’s deputy arrived on the property and told the hunting party to leave. The deputy, upon the consent of the landowner, searched his truck and found a dismantled barrel of a shotgun. The deputy left the property and took no further action. 

The landowner subsequently filed suit against the hunters, seeking damages for trespass, slander, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, assault, false imprisonment and intentional infliction of emotional distress. During the course of litigation, the landowner dropped some of the charges, but the claims for assault, false imprisonment and trespass proceeded to trial. The trial court judge found in favor of the defendant hunters and the landowner appealed. 

On appeal, the landowner claimed that the court abused its discretion by admitting testimony regarding the deputy hunter’s reputation for honesty and for admitting expert testimony on the issue of the deputy’s authority to detain or arrest the landowner when he was off-duty.  The landowner also argued that there was substantial evidence of assault, trespass and false imprisonment. As to the first claim, the Iowa Court of Appeals found that the testimony offered by the deputy’s superior was merely a lay opinion and he was not testifying as an expert on the credibility of the deputy. He was merely a character witness and the Iowa Rules of Evidence allows evidence of the “truthful character of a witness after the witness’s credibility has been attacked.” Further, even if the evidence had been admitted improperly, the court most likely would have found in favor of the defendants without it based upon substantial evidence. 

As to the next issue, the Iowa Rules of evidence allow opinion testimony by a qualified witness as an expert. The witness does not have to be a “specialist in the particular area of testimony so long as the testimony falls within the witness’s general area of expertise.” Here, the officer’s testimony of whether the deputy had the authority to arrest the landowner should probably not have been admitted. The appellate court questioned the designation of the officer as an expert in the area, but determined that testimony was “harmless” and really did not affect the outcome at the trial level.

The appellate court next found that the trial court judge acted appropriately in finding that there was not enough evidence to find the defendants guilty of assault, false imprisonment and trespass. As to the assault charge, the landowner needed to prove that the hunters intended to put him “in fear of physical contact” which would be insulting or offensive and that they had the “apparent ability to execute the act.” The trial court found the hunters’ witnesses to be more credible as to the account of the encounter in the driveway. Thus, the landowner was unable to prove the requisite intent needed to prove the assault charge. 

The court next looked at the charge of false imprisonment. Here, the landowner must have proven that the deputy restrained or detained him and that the detention or restraint was unlawful.  It was clear from the facts that the deputy detained the landowner, but the question for the court was whether had could lawfully make an arrest outside the territorial jurisdiction of the municipality where he was employed. Interestingly, the Iowa Code does not specifically answer the question. However, the appellate court cited several cases holding that off-duty police officers have the authority to affect an arrest “if crimes are committed in their presence.” Absent the ability to make an arrest as a peace officer, the deputy could also have made an arrest as a private individual if a “public offense” was committed in his presence. Thus, the court reasoned, merely detaining the landowner for a few minutes before the local law enforcement officer arrived was clearly within the realm of legality. 

The appellate court also found that the trial court appropriately dismissed the landowner’s claims of trespass. To be found guilty of a trespass in Iowa, one must intentionally and without consent enter the land in possession of another. The deputy had the authority to detain the landowner until local law enforcement arrived. Thus, there was not criminal trespass.  

Finally, the appellate court examined the slander charge, originally raised by the landowner. They found that the trial court correctly dismissed the charge. In Iowa, “slander occurs when one makes an oral statement which tends to injure a person’s reputation or good name.” The landowner claimed that the 911 calls made by the hunters were slanderous attacks. The trial court found, and the appellate court agreed, that there was substantial evidence that the landowner had shot at hunters before and it was reasonable to assume that he may be doing so again. Long v. Lauffer, et al., No. 0-708/09-1916, 2011 Iowa App. LEXIS 41 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 20, 2011).