False imprisonment is an act punishable under criminal law as well as under tort law. Under tort law, it is classified as an intentional tort. A a person commits false imprisonment when he commits an act of restraint on another person which confines that person in a bounded area.
Prima Facie Case
- The defendant willfully acts . . .
- . . . intending to confine the plaintiff without the plaintiff's consent and without authority of law
- the defendant's act causes the plaintiff's confinement
- the plaintiff is aware of his/her own confinement
An act of restraint can be a physical barrier (such as a locked door), the use of physical force to restrain, a failure to release, or an invalid use of legal authority. An area is only bounded if freedom of movement is limited in all directions. If there is a reasonable means of escape from the area, the area is not bounded. However, if the means of escaping will result in the risk of physical harm to the detainee, then the area is bounded. Further, threatening to harm the detainee's family if the detainee leaves would also result in the area being bounded.
Threats of False Imprisonment
Threats of immediate physical force may also be sufficient to be acts of restraint. A mere threat to imprison will not qualify for false imprisonment. Typically when determining whether a threat counts as false imprisonment, the court will look at whether the plaintiff had a just fear of injury.
Invalid Use of Legal Authority
An example of an invalid use of legal authority is the detainment or arrest of a person without a warrant, with an illegal warrant, or with a warrant illegally executed. So long as the person is deprived of his personal liberty, the amount of time actually detained is inconsequential. See, e.g. Schenck v. Pro Choice Network, 519 U.S. 357 (1997)
One of the affirmative defenses to the false imprisonment tort is called the shopkeeper's privilege defense. in this situation, a defendant store-owner has detained the plaintiff because the defendant believed that the plaintiff has stolen or is attempting to steal an item from the defendant. The doctrine of shopkeeper's privilege states that in this situation, a shopkeeper defendant who reasonably believes that the plaintiff has stolen or is attempting to steal something from the defendant shopkeeper may detain the plaintiff in a reasonable manner for a reasonable amount of time to investigate.
Off-Shoots of False Imprisonment
There are two other torts which fall under false imprisonment: the tort of "malicious prosecution" and the tort of "abuse of process".
To prove malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must prove 3 things:
- The defendant acted without probable cause and with malice toward P
- But for the defendant's actions, the prosecution would not have proceeded
- The plaintiff did not engage in the alleged misconduct
To prove an abuse of process tort, the plaintiff needs to prove that the defendant invoked the legal system in order to extort, threaten, or harass the plaintiff.