False Imprisonment

The core of any false imprisonment claim is the absence of consent. If an individual voluntarily agrees to remain in a room to clear up a misunderstanding, no tort has occurred. However, consent obtained through coercion, fraud or duress is invalid. We often encounter cases where victims are told they cannot leave until they sign a document or confess to an act.

In these scenarios, the plaintiff must demonstrate that they believed they were not free to go. The standard is objective: would a reasonable person in the same situation have felt compelled to stay? Silence or a failure to physically fight back does not equal consent, especially when there is a significant disparity in physical size or authority between the parties. We meticulously examine the transcript of the interaction to identify verbal commands that imply a lack of choice.

Confinement is not limited to locked doors or physical binding. It can be achieved through threats of force, intimidation or the retention of personal property. For example, if a manager confiscates an employee’s car keys or cell phone and refuses to return them, effectively preventing the employee from leaving the premises, this constitutes confinement.

Similarly, a threat to harm a family member if the victim leaves creates a barrier just as real as a locked gate. Our legal strategy involves identifying these non-physical constraints and articulating to a jury how the implied threat of violence or severe consequence effectively paralyzed the victim’s will to leave. We argue that the psychological barrier erected by the defendant was insurmountable.

Confinement is not limited to locked doors or physical binding. It can be achieved through threats of force, intimidation or the retention of personal property. For example, if a manager confiscates an employee’s car keys or cell phone and refuses to return them, effectively preventing the employee from leaving the premises, this constitutes confinement.

Similarly, a threat to harm a family member if the victim leaves creates a barrier just as real as a locked gate. Our legal strategy involves identifying these non-physical constraints and articulating to a jury how the implied threat of violence or severe consequence effectively paralyzed the victim’s will to leave. We argue that the psychological barrier erected by the defendant was insurmountable.

A unique nuance in false imprisonment law is the requirement of awareness. Generally, the victim must be aware of the confinement at the time it occurs to recover damages. If a person is locked in a room while asleep and the door is unlocked before they wake up, they have arguably suffered no harm to their dignity or liberty.

However, an exception exists if the confinement caused physical harm during the period of unconsciousness. In the majority of cases we handle, the victim is acutely aware of their detention, and the distress caused by that helplessness is a primary component of the damages sought. We use this awareness to establish the emotional damages component of the claim, focusing on the panic and anxiety experienced during the event.

A hunch is not probable cause. For a store to lawfully stop a customer, they generally need specific, articulable facts suggesting a crime. Many effective lawsuits stem from profiling stops where no actual concealment of merchandise was observed. We aggressively request surveillance footage and incident reports during discovery to prove that the security staff lacked a valid basis for the initial stop.

If the staff did not see the customer enter the section, select the item, conceal the item and attempt to leave without paying, the foundation for their defense crumbles. We cross-examine security personnel to expose gaps in their observation, demonstrating that the stop was based on bias rather than evidence.

Even with probable cause, the detention must be conducted reasonably. Use of excessive force, use of racial slurs, public humiliation or strip searches are almost never considered reasonable by a court. We have litigated cases where loss prevention officers tackled customers in the parking lot or handcuffed them in front of their children.

Such conduct pierces the Shopkeeper’s Privilege. The law requires the investigation to be conducted calmly and privately. Any deviation into violence or intimidation transforms a lawful stop into actionable false imprisonment and often battery. We argue that the manner of detention caused more harm than the alleged theft ever could have.

A merchant cannot hold a suspect indefinitely. The detention is legally permitted only for the time necessary to conduct a brief investigation or await the arrival of law enforcement. Detaining a customer for hours in a back room to coerce a confession or demand a civil payment is unlawful.

We scrutinize the timeline of the event, checking timestamps on video and dispatch logs to demonstrate that the store held the victim far longer than necessary, effectively turning a retail investigation into an illegal jail. We establish that once the police were called, or once the merchandise was recovered, any further detention was punitive and illegal.

h2. False Imprisonment by Law Enforcement vs. False Arrest

Most false imprisonment claims against police arise from warrantless arrests. If an officer has a valid warrant, they are generally immune from liability even if the charges are later dropped. However, in a warrantless scenario, the burden is on the officer to prove that facts existed to justify the arrest.

We analyze police body camera footage to dissect the interaction. If the officer lacked reasonable suspicion for a Terry stop or probable cause for an arrest, the detention was illegal from the moment it began. We look for the exact moment the consensual encounter turned into a detention and challenge the legal basis for that shift.

The biggest hurdle in suits against law enforcement is Qualified Immunity, which protects government officials from liability unless they violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. Overcoming this requires high-level legal research and advocacy. We must demonstrate that the officer’s conduct was so egregious that no reasonable official would have believed it was lawful.

This often involves citing specific precedent where similar conduct was deemed unconstitutional, thereby stripping the officer of their immunity shield. We craft arguments showing that the officer knowingly violated established protocols, removing them from the protection of immunity.

Beyond state tort law, these cases involve significant constitutional questions. A false imprisonment by a state actor is a deprivation of liberty without due process. This allows us to seek remedies that might not be available in a simple private tort case, including attorney fees under federal statutes.

We frame the case not just as a mistake by an officer, but as a systemic failure to respect constitutional boundaries. This approach resonates with juries who value civil liberties and hold law enforcement to a higher standard of conduct.

The primary component of damages is usually emotional distress. Victims often suffer from anxiety, PTSD, fear of public spaces or humiliation, especially if the detention occurred in front of neighbors or coworkers. We utilize expert witnesses such as forensic psychologists to evaluate the long-term impact of the event on the client’s mental health.

This testimony is crucial in converting subjective feelings of shame into objective, compensable damages. We present evidence of sleep disturbances, therapy costs and changes in daily routine to paint a vivid picture of the trauma.

In cases where the defendant acted with malice, oppression or reckless disregard for the victim’s rights, punitive damages may be awarded. These are designed to punish the wrongdoer and deter future misconduct. For example, if a store manager mocked the victim while detaining them or if an employer locked employees in a warehouse to prevent them from taking breaks, a jury may award punitive damages that far exceed the actual compensatory damages.

This is often the greatest financial risk for corporate defendants. We aggressively pursue discovery regarding the defendant’s net worth to argue for a punitive award that is sufficient to sting the corporation and force a change in policy.

False imprisonment often carries secondary economic consequences. A victim may miss work, lose a job or suffer damage to their professional reputation. If the detention led to a publicized arrest that was later deemed false, the stigma can be lasting.

We calculate lost wages and potential future earnings loss. In cases involving professionals, we may bring in vocational experts to testify on how the reputational damage impacts career trajectory. We ensure every dollar lost due to the defendant’s actions is accounted for in the demand.

Implied consent is a powerful defense. If an employee is called into an office for an interview and sits there for an hour without ever asking to leave or attempting to open the door, it is difficult to argue they were imprisoned. We look for evidence of voluntary compliance.

Did the plaintiff walk to the room on their own? Did they have their phone? Did they act casually? Any indication that the plaintiff controlled the duration of the encounter undermines the claim of compulsion. We use surveillance video to show body language that is inconsistent with a person being held against their will.

Beyond the Shopkeeper’s Privilege, property owners have a limited right to defend their property. If a homeowner detains an intruder until police arrive, they are generally protected from liability. Similarly, parents have the legal authority to confine their minor children.

We ensure that the context of the relationship and the location is fully presented to the court. A security guard acting in good faith to protect property from imminent theft may be shielded from liability even if they were ultimately mistaken, provided their actions remained within the scope of reasonable defense of property.

In rare instances, confinement may be justified by necessity. If a defendant detains a plaintiff to prevent them from harming themselves or others, or to protect them from an immediate danger, this serves as a complete defense. For example, stopping an intoxicated person from entering a vehicle may technically be confinement, but it is legally justified.

We gather witness testimony to establish the imminent danger that prompted the detention. We argue that the defendant acted as a reasonable person would in an emergency, prioritizing safety over the plaintiff’s immediate freedom of movement.