False Imprisonment Article Index for
False 		Website Links For
False 		 

Information About

False Imprisonment
  CATEGORIES ABOUT FALSE IMPRISONMENT
   
tort law
   
imprisonment and detention
   
SHOPPER'S DELIGHT
 
Shop For:  
Department
Price Minimum:
Price Maximum:
      



False imprisonment is a Tort , and possibly a Crime , wherein a person is intentionally confined without legal authority.


ELEMENTS


The elements of the tort are:
  • ''Intent'' to confine another person against their will. In Australia, this element will be fulfilled if the imprisonment is negligently occasioned.

  • An ''act'' pursuant to this intent.

  • The resulting ''confinement'' of another person against their will.

  • Absence of a ''reasonable means of escape''. A means of escape will not be reasonable if it endangers personal safety, such as leaping from the window of a tall building.

  • In some jurisdictions, ''awareness'' of the confinement by the person so confined. In both England and Australia, consciousness of imprisonment is not an element of the tort.

  • Absence of ''legal authority'' on the part of the person acting to confine another.



SCENARIOS


The following are false imprisonment scenarios.

  • The taking hostage of a bank's customers and employees by bank robbers.

  • The detainment of gym-goers by the gym's owner for the failure of the gym-goers to pay their monthly bill.



WHAT FALSE IMPRISONMENT IS NOT


Not all detainments constitute false imprisonment.


Police Privilege


A police officer has the right to detain someone if he has Probable Cause to believe a crime has been committed, and that the person is so involved, or if the officer has Reasonable Suspicion that the person has been, is, or is about to be, engaged in criminal activity based on specific and articulable facts and inferences. Reasonable suspicion, less stringent of a standard than probable cause, is the basis for the investigatory Terry Stop .


Shopkeep's Privilege


A store owner holds the common law Shopkeep's Privilege , under which he is allowed to detain a suspected shoplifter on store property for a reasonable period of time, with cause to believe that the person detained in fact committed, or attempted to commit theft of store property. The shopkeep's privilege, although recognized in most jurisdictions, is not as broad a privilege as that of a police officer's, and therefore one must pay special attention to the temporal element -- that is, the shopkeep may only detain the suspected criminal for a relatively short period of time.


CASES


In Louisiana, a pharmacist and his pharmacy were found guilty of false imprisonment when they instructed a patient of theirs to wait around while a police officer was being called without her knowledge, because they were suspicious of a prescription that was meant for her. Before she came in, her doctor had called in a prescription, but for several reasons, the pharmacist was suspicious of the prescription, and when she came in, he and fellow employees asked the patient to wait while they were supposedly working on the prescription. When the police arrived, they arrested the patient. While the patient was in prison, the police verified with her doctor that the prescription was authentic and that it was meant for her. After this incident, the patient sued the pharmacy and its employees receiving $20, 000. An appeals court reversed the judgement, because it believed the elements of false imprisonment were not met.

In Colorado, a woman sued a police officer after being arrested for not leashing her dog for false imprisonment. The plaintif was in her car when she was approached by the officer, and when she was asked to produce her driver's license and failed to do so, she was arrested. She won her claim, despite the fact having lost the case of not leashing her dog. The court reasoned that the officer did not have proper legal authority in arresting her, because he arrested her for not producing her driver's license as opposed to the dog leash violation.


SEE ALSO




REFERENCES