What is false imprisonment?

False imprisonment is defined in most states as the intentional confinement of a person without legal authority or the person’s consent. To be convicted of false imprisonment, a prosecutor must generally show that the individual intended to confine the victim within certain boundaries; the victim did not give consent to be confined, and these intended boundaries actually confined the plaintiff unlawfully. Depending on the state, and the facts particular to a case, false imprisonment can be prosecuted as a misdemeanor or prosecuted as a felony. In addition to prosecuting false imprisonment as a crime, the victim in a false imprisonment case can also file a claim in civil court for damages.

What are false imprisonment charges?

To be convicted of a false imprisonment offense, the individual must intend to confine the other individual. Take for example, if a person locks up a room from the outside, not knowing that another person is within the room and unable to leave as a result. Because the person who locked the room did not know that there was another individual within the room, they could not have intended to confine the individual, and have not committed the crime of false imprisonment. However, even if the person did not realize he was confining another at the time, if he later learns of the confinement, and does not allow the person to leave, then he has committed false imprisonment.

To falsely imprison another individual, the person accused of imprisoning must have confined an individual by imposing barriers upon them. However, physical barriers are not necessary to prove a false imprisonment case. An individual can accomplish false imprisonment through duress, force, or threat of force, and any consent obtained from a victim by coercion or threat and infliction of mental suffering and/or bodily injury is not considered valid. For example, suppose that an individual went into a convenience store, waived a gun around, and told everyone not to move. Even though the people within the convenience store are not physically restrained from leaving the store, the robber’s threat on its own will likely be enough of a “boundary” to constitute false imprisonment.

Also, the imposed boundaries must actually confine the individual to be false imprisonment. This means that if a person barricades two doors to a room with an individual inside, but the third door remains open and would allow the individual to escape, the individual has not been falsely imprisoned.

The crime of false imprisonment also requires that the confinement be unlawful. Almost any situation in which one civilian imprisons another is unlawful confinement. Cases, where the confinement is lawful, are found when law enforcement officers make a legal arrest. However, if an individual pretends he has the legal authority to make an arrest in order to confine another individual, this is generally deemed unlawful confinement.

If an individual is detained in a jail or prison, they may also seek redress through a writ of habeas corpus. A writ of habeas corpus is a legal brief filed with a court, which alleges that the individual is being held within the prison unlawfully.

What are the types of defenses that can be used against false imprisonment charges?

There are several ways to defend against a charge of false imprisonment. If an individual can show that the confinement was in good faith, i.e. for the protection of the individual being confined, the charge of false imprisonment generally will not be sustained. Other defenses include consent by the person allegedly confined, lack of evidence of confinement, authorized confinement, merchant confinement, and parental authority.

The defense of authorized confinement to a false imprisonment claim is when a legal arrest has been made. As stated above, a legal arrest is generally made by a peace officer and is based on probable cause or a warrant. Some states also allow a “citizen’s arrest” to be made under limited circumstances. A citizen’s arrest is when one or more civilians “arrest” another civilian. If the individual charged with false imprisonment is found to have been exercising his or her legal duty to arrest an individual that they reasonably believed had been involved in a crime, this is a complete defense to a charge of false imprisonment.

Many states also allow a merchant’s confinement as a defense to a false imprisonment charge. The merchant’s exception allows a store employee to detain a person for a reasonable amount of time if they suspect the person has shoplifted from the store. However, like a lawful arrest, the store employee must also have probable cause to detain the suspect. In most states that allow this defense, this means that the store employee must have witnessed the individual shoplift, and also must have witnessed the individual fail to pay for the item shoplifted. Further, the store employee must wait until the suspected shoplifter leaves the premises to apprehend them.

Finally, in some cases, the parental authority may be a defense to a false imprisonment charge. This means that a parent may confine their child, as long as it is not meant to harm them. However, if the parent confines their child for an unlawful purpose, or the confinement puts the child’s health or safety in danger, then the parent may not use the defense of parental authority.

What are the consequences of a false imprisonment charge?

In most states, the level of threat or violence used when containing an individual to certain boundaries can raise the charge of false imprisonment from a misdemeanor to a felony. For example, if a mere threat without anything more is used to confine an individual, this may be charged as a misdemeanor. However, if it is later discovered that the threat was accompanied by a weapon, this could raise the level of the charge to a felony. In some states, false imprisonment is always prosecuted as a felony. The consequences of such a conviction, in addition to possible lengthy prison sentences, may include future difficulty finding employment, loss or inability to acquire professional licenses and other issues.

Case Studies: False Imprisonment

Case Study 1: Unintentional Confinement

John, a security guard at a shopping mall, inadvertently locks a maintenance room from the outside without realizing that a janitor is inside. The janitor becomes confined to the room, and upon discovering this, John immediately releases him.

Although unintentional, the janitor files a false imprisonment claim against John, citing emotional distress. The court must determine whether John’s actions qualify as false imprisonment and assess the impact on the janitor’s well-being.

Case Study 2: Coerced Shopper

Sarah enters a store and unknowingly picks up an item without realizing she hasn’t paid for it yet. The store employee, acting under the merchant’s exception, confronts Sarah and accuses her of shoplifting.

Feeling cornered and frightened by the store employee’s aggressive approach, Sarah doesn’t attempt to leave the premises. The store employee detains her for a brief period until the situation is clarified. Sarah claims false imprisonment, alleging that the employee used undue coercion to keep her confined against her will.

Case Study 3: Parental Authority Misused

Alex’s father, under the belief that he is disciplining his son, locks Alex in his room for several hours as a punishment for misbehavior. However, the confinement causes significant emotional distress to Alex, who feels trapped and scared.

Despite being his parent, Alex’s father may face a false imprisonment claim, as his actions were deemed excessive and harmful to the child’s well-being.

Case Study 4: False Imprisonment by a Business Owner

Emma, a customer at a restaurant, experiences an altercation with the owner over a billing dispute. The owner, acting aggressively, blocks the exit and refuses to let Emma leave until she pays the contested amount.

Feeling threatened and anxious, Emma stays confined within the restaurant until she eventually pays the disputed bill. Later, Emma decides to pursue a false imprisonment case against the restaurant owner, arguing that the owner unlawfully detained her, leading to emotional distress and financial loss.

Case Study 5: Threats and Confinement

Mike, a vulnerable individual, is threatened and intimidated by a person wielding a weapon. The assailant forces Mike to stay inside a confined space against his will, using fear and coercion as means of control.

Even though the physical boundaries aren’t explicit, Mike’s mental state, coupled with the implied threat of violence, results in his confinement. This case examines whether a threat alone can constitute false imprisonment when accompanied by the intention to confine someone.