false imprisonment
False imprisonment is an intentional tort that occurs when a person confines another within a bounded area without their consent or authority of law. This act of restraint can be in the form of physical barriers, physical force, failure to release, or invalid use of legal authority. A bounded area is considered such if it restricts freedom in all directions and there are no reasonable means for escape.
Threats may also qualify as false imprisonment if they result in just fear from the plaintiff. An invalid use of legal authority would include detainment with an illegal warrant or illegally executed warrant.
Keypoints:
- The defendant willfully confined the plaintiff without the plaintiff's consent and without authority of law.
- The defendant's act caused the plaintiff's confinement.
- The plaintiff was aware of his own confinement.
There are two affirmative defenses for false imprisonment:
- shopkeeper's privilege and
- off-shoots malicious prosecution and abuse of process.
To prove malicious prosecution, one must show that defendant acted without probable cause and with malice, but for the defendant's actions, prosecution would not have proceeded, and that plaintiff did not engage in alleged misconduct.
To prove abuse of process one must show that the defendant invoked legal system to extort, threaten or harass the plaintiff.
***The doctrine of shopkeeper's privilege:
The doctrine of shopkeeper's privilege is an affirmative defense to the tort of false imprisonment. This allows a store-owner defendant, who reasonably believes that the plaintiff has stolen or attempted to steal something from them, to detain the plaintiff in a reasonable manner for a reasonable amount of time while they investigate.
In such situations, it can be used as an effective defense against claims of false imprisonment.