false imprisonment

False imprisonment occurs when one person intentionally restrains another in a way that confines the individual within a bounded area without consent or legal authority. It is recognized both as a crime and as an intentional tort.

Prima Facie Case

To establish a prima facie case, the plaintiff must show:

  • The defendant acted willfully
  • The defendant intended to confine the plaintiff without consent and without lawful authority
  • The defendant’s act caused the plaintiff’s confinement
  • The plaintiff was aware of the confinement

Bounded Area

Restraint may be imposed by physical barriers (such as a locked door), physical force, failure to release, or misuse of legal authority. An area is bounded only if the plaintiff’s movement is restricted in all directions. A reasonable means of safe escape prevents an area from being considered bounded. If escape would cause risk of physical harm, or if threats are made against the plaintiff or family members, the area is deemed bounded.

Threats of False Imprisonment

Threats of immediate physical force can constitute restraint. Mere threats of future imprisonment are insufficient. Courts consider whether the plaintiff had a reasonable fear of injury.

Invalid Use of Legal Authority

False imprisonment may occur if a person is detained under an invalid warrant, without a warrant, or under a warrant executed unlawfully. The duration of detention is immaterial if personal liberty is restrained. See Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network, 519 U.S. 357 (1997).

Shopkeeper’s Privilege

A shopkeeper who reasonably believes a customer is committing theft may detain the customer for a reasonable time and in a reasonable manner to investigate. This affirmative defense is known as shopkeeper’s privilege.

Related Torts

False imprisonment is related to two other intentional torts: malicious prosecution and abuse of process.

Malicious prosecution requires proof that the defendant acted without probable cause, acted with malice, caused the prosecution to proceed, and that the plaintiff was not guilty of the alleged misconduct.

Abuse of process requires proof that the defendant misused the legal process to extort, harass, or threaten the plaintiff.

[Last reviewed in August of 2025 by the Wex Definitions Team] 

Keywords

Wex