United States Under
United States law, police officers have the authority to detain individuals based on
probable cause that a crime has been committed and the individual was involved, or based on
reasonable suspicion that the individual has been, is, or is about to be engaged in a criminal activity.
Elements To prevail under a false imprisonment claim, a plaintiff must prove: • Willful detention in a bounded area • Without consent; and • Without authority of lawful arrest. (Restatement of the Law, Second, Torts)
Shopkeeper's privilege Many jurisdictions in the
United States recognize the common-law principle of
shopkeeper's privilege, under which a person is allowed to use reasonable force to detain a suspected shoplifter on store property for a reasonable period of time. A shopkeeper, who has cause to believe that the detainee has committed or attempted a theft of store property, is allowed to ask the suspect to demonstrate that they have not been
shoplifting. The purpose of the shopkeeper's privilege is to discover if the suspect is shoplifting and, if so, whether the shoplifted item can be reclaimed. The shopkeeper's privilege is not as broad as police officer's privilege to arrest.
Rationale This privilege has been justified by the very practical need for some degree of protection for shopkeepers in their dealings with suspected shoplifters. Absent such privilege, a shopkeeper would be faced with the dilemma of either allowing suspects to leave without challenge or acting upon their suspicion and risk making a
false arrest.
Requirement In order for a customer to be detained, the shopkeeper must: • Conduct the investigation on the store premises, or immediately near the premises. • Have reasonable cause to believe the person detained was shoplifting. • Use reasonable (non-excessive) force to detain the suspected individual. • Not prolong the detention longer than a reasonable amount of time needed to gather all the facts.
Examples Colorado In
Enright v. Groves, a woman sued a police officer for false imprisonment after being arrested for not producing her
driver's license. The plaintiff was in her car when she was approached by the officer for not leashing her dog; she was arrested after being asked to produce her driver's license and failing to do so. She won her claim, despite 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 (which itself was legal) as opposed to the dog leash violation.
Indiana In a Clark County, Indiana Circuit Court case, Destiny Hoffman was jailed for 154 days, during which "no hearing was conducted to determine the validity of such sanction and the defendant was not represented by counsel" according to deputy county prosecutor Michaelia Gilbert. An order by Judge Jerry Jacobi in the Clark County Circuit Court case was supposed to be a 48-hour jail stay for Hoffman, pending drug evaluation and treatment, "until further order of the court."
United Kingdom This tort falls under the umbrella term "
trespass to the person" alongside "
battery and
assault". The definition of false imprisonment under UK law and legislation is the "Unlawful imposition or constraint of another's freedom of movement from a particular place." False imprisonment is where the defendant intentionally or recklessly, and unlawfully, restricts the claimant's freedom of movement totally. During which there is no time limit, false imprisonment could occur for seconds and still be false imprisonment.
Elements Intentional or reckless An example of reckless imprisonment may be a janitor locking up a school for the night, knowing that someone might still be inside, but without bothering to check. Whereas, regarding intention, intention to imprison a person is what matters and not necessarily an intention to falsely imprison someone. For example, in
R v Governor of Brockhill Prison, ex p Evans, it did not matter if the decision to imprison the claimant was in good faith, or considered lawful, it still constituted false imprisonment. False imprisonment does not require a literal prison, but a restriction of the claimant's freedom of movement (
complete restraint). According to the
Termes de la Ley, 'imprisonment is the restraint of a man's liberty, whether it be in the open field, or in the
stocks, or in the cage in the streets or in a man's own house, as well as in the common
gaole'. Imprisonment does not have to involve seizure of the claimant; touching and informing him that he is under arrest are sufficient. Tagging and an imposed curfew can be false imprisonment. The restriction must also be total, meaning that the claimant is restricted to an area delimited by the defendant. The larger the area, the less likely the claimant will be deemed to be imprisoned. For example, confining a person to a house would constitute the tort of false imprisonment. However, confining someone to the land mass of the USA would not. Therefore, false imprisonment is not just about locking someone within a room, the following examples have all been found to constitute false imprisonment: • Where a defendant might position themselves in a doorway to prevent someone leaving a room, as in
Walker v Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis [2014]. • Where a defendant might threaten violence if the claimant leaves, which could thus be both false imprisonment and assault. • Where a defendant ensures someone stays in a room simply by asserting their authority, as in
Harnett v Bond and
Meering v Grahame-White Aviation. Finally, where a claimant accedes to authority that does not necessarily mean they consent to being detained, as in
Warner v Riddiford (1858).
Complete restraint 'Imprisonment is, as I apprehend, a total restraint of the liberty of the person, for however, short a time, and not a partial obstruction of his will, whatever inconvenience it may bring on him.' There must be complete restraint, therefore, if there are alternative routes that can be taken this is not false imprisonment. Such as in
Bird v Jones [1845] where the claimant wanted to walk over Hammersmith bridge but the defendant had cordoned off the public footpath, however, this did not constitute false imprisonment because, through using a longer route, the claimant could have still reached their destination. Therefore, if there is a means of escape, this is not false imprisonment. There must be no reasonable means of escape and you may be
compensated for any damages caused in order for you to escape reasonably. However, if you have not taken a reasonable route of escape/reasonable action you will not be awarded damages.
Awareness It is still false imprisonment even where the claimant does not know at the time. So secretly locking someone in a room is false imprisonment. It may also be false imprisonment where a person is rendered unconscious, for example, by being punched (also a battery), or when their drink is spiked by drugs (also wilful harm or negligence), because their freedom of movement is thereby restricted. For example, in the case of
Meering v Grahame-White Aviation [1918] the claimant was told to stay in an office because property was going missing and if they tried to leave the office they would have been stopped. This was held to be a false imprisonment even though the claimant did not know they were being imprisoned.
Omission In the majority of circumstances/generally, the tort of false imprisonment cannot be committed by
omission (a failure to act). Yet, in certain circumstances defendants may still be found liable if they are under a
positive obligation to release the claimant and the claimant has the legal right to be released. In the case of ''Prison Officer's Association v Iqbal'' where a defendant could not leave their cell due to the prison officers being on strike, it was held at [61] that: Thus, the defendants were liable for omission under the tort of false imprisonment. Moreover, in the case of
R v Governor of Brockhill Prison, ex p Evans, or the pilot of a plane can detain people during a voyage or flight when they have a reasonable cause or grounds to believe it necessary for the safety of their other passengers. Suddenly saying "I would like to leave now" is dangerous and thus, they have no reason to let you leave, moreover, you are contractually obligated to remain onboard. Therefore, this would not constitute false imprisonment. Additionally, when a claimant is following a work contract the employer may not be held for false imprisonment for not allowing them to leave early due to a breach of contract and potential losses that could result from them leaving. In the case of
Herd v Weardale Steel Coal where the claimant was in a mine, they were working and they wanted to leave the mine. The employer refused to let them leave at that time and the court held that the employer was under no obligation to allow them to do so.
Police Under
English law, police have the right to arrest under a warrant issued by a magistrate, 'anyone who is about to commit, is committing or has committed an offence or is so suspected on reasonable grounds may be arrested.' Also, arrest may be lawful if the police have reason to believe that the person arrested poses an imminent risk of harm to themselves or others. Private citizens can also make an arrest for crimes being committed/that have been committed but only in relation to indictable offences ('citizen's arrest'). 'although this may instead be found to be
negligence or the tort of misfeasance in a public office.' The pair lost their court action in 2005, when the High Court ruled that the police had not acted unlawfully. An appeal against the ruling also failed in 2007. == Defences ==