FALSE IMPRISONMENT
The illegal confinement of one individual against
his or her will by another individual in such a
manner as to violate the confined individual’s
right to be free from restraint of movement.
To recover damages for false imprisonment,
an individual must be confined to a substantial
degree, with her or his freedom of movement
totally restrained. Interfering with or obstruct-
ing an individual’s freedom to go where she or
he wishes does not constitute false imprison-
ment. For example, if Bob enters a room, and
Anne prevents him from leaving through one
exit but does not prevent him from leaving the
way he came in, Bob has not been falsely impris-
oned.An accidental or inadvertent confinement,
such as when someone is mistakenly locked in a
room, also does not constitute false imprison-
ment; the individual who caused the confine-
ment must have intended the restraint.
False imprisonment often involves the use of
physical force, but such force is not required.
The threat of force or arrest, or a belief on the
part of the person being restrained that force
will be used, is sufficient. The restraint can also
be imposed by physical barriers or through
unreasonable duress imposed on the person
being restrained. For example, suppose a shop-
per is in a room with a security guard, who is
questioning her about items she may have taken
from the store. If the guard makes statements
leading the shopper to believe that she could
face arrest if she attempts to leave, the shopper
may have a reasonable belief that she is being
restrained from leaving, even if no actual force
or physical barriers are being used to restrain
her. The shopper, depending on the other facts
of the case, may therefore have a claim for false
imprisonment. False imprisonment has thus
sometimes been found in situations where a
storekeeper detained an individual to investigate
whether the individual shoplifted merchandise.
Owing to increasing concerns over shoplifting,
many states have adopted laws that allow store
personnel to detain a customer suspected of
shoplifting for the purpose of investigating the
situation. California law, for example, provides
that “[a] merchant may detain a person for a
reasonable time for the purpose of conducting
an investigation . . . whenever the merchant has
PROBABLE CAUSE to believe the person . . . is
attempting to unlawfully take or has unlawfully
taken merchandise” (Cal. Penal Code § 490.5
[West 1996]).
False arrest is a type of false imprisonment
in which the individual being held mistakenly
believes that the individual restraining him or
her possesses the legal authority to do so. A law
enforcement officer will not be liable for false
arrest where he or she has probable cause for an
arrest. The arresting officer bears the burden of
showing that his or her actions were supported
by probable cause. Probable cause exists when
the facts and the circumstances known by the
officer at the time of arrest lead the officer to
reasonably believe that a crime has been com-
mitted and that the person arrested committed
the crime. Thus, suppose that a police officer has
learned that a man in his forties with a red beard
and a baseball cap has stolen a car. The officer
sees a man matching this description on the
street and detains him for questioning about the
theft. The officer will not be liable for false
arrest, even if it is later determined that the man
she stopped did not steal the car, since she had
probable cause to detain him.
An individual alleging false imprisonment
may sue for damages for the interference with
her or his right to move freely. An individual
who has suffered no actual damages as a result of
an illegal confinement may be awarded nominal
damages in recognition of the invasion of rights
caused by the defendant’s wrongful conduct. A
plaintiff who has suffered injuries and can offer
proof of them can be compensated for physical
injuries, mental suffering, loss of earnings, and
attorneys’ fees. If the confinement involved mal-
ice or extreme or needless violence, a plaintiff
may also be awarded PUNITIVE DAMAGES.
An individual whose conduct constitutes the
TORT of false imprisonment might also be
charged with committing the crime of KIDNAP-
PING, since the same pattern of conduct may
provide grounds for both. However, kidnapping
