False Imprisonment: Lawful Arrests And Their Complexities

False imprisonment occurs when a person unlawfully restricts another's freedom of movement against their will without any legal justification or consent. False imprisonment is both a crime and a civil wrong. It can be committed by anyone and does not require a literal prison, but rather a restriction of the claimant's freedom of movement. False arrest, on the other hand, involves unlawful restraint or detention by a person with asserted legal authority to make an arrest. So, can false imprisonment occur by lawful arrest?

False imprisonment by a private citizen

False imprisonment is the unlawful restraint of a person against their will by someone without legal authority or justification. It occurs when a person intentionally and illegally restricts another person's ability to move freely. The defendant willfully acts intending to confine the plaintiff without the plaintiff's consent and without the authority of the law.

False imprisonment can be perpetrated by anyone, not just those with asserted legal authority to make an arrest. For example, a private citizen can commit false imprisonment by intentionally locking another person in a room with no means of escape, without consent, and without legal authority. The detainee must be restrained via a physical barrier, physical force, a failure to release, or an invalid use of legal authority. Threats to harm the detainee if they leave could also be considered a form of restraint.

In the United States, both false arrest and false imprisonment are considered violations of a person's Fourth Amendment rights, which protect against unreasonable seizures of the person. However, many jurisdictions distinguish false arrest from false imprisonment by defining false arrest as a situation where the arresting party has asserted legal authority to make arrests. On the other hand, false imprisonment can be committed by anyone, regardless of their claim to authority.

In some jurisdictions, private citizens can make an arrest for crimes being committed or that have been committed, but only in relation to indictable offenses ("citizen's arrest"). For example, in England and Wales, any person has the power to make a citizen's arrest under Section 24A(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. However, anyone who makes a citizen's arrest can face possible lawsuits or criminal charges if the wrong person is apprehended.

In Australia, if a private citizen or security officer acts reasonably in detaining a suspect, and the suspect acts unreasonably, the court will likely find in favor of the citizen or security officer if the suspect later sues for assault or false imprisonment. On the other hand, if a property owner arrests a thief in a manner disproportionate to the likely harm to the victim and in clear defiance of the rights of the suspect, the court will likely find in favor of the suspect.

In Japan, Section 213 of the Code of Criminal Procedure allows anyone, from civilians to firefighters, to make a citizen's arrest if they witness any crime in progress. However, making a citizen's arrest to prevent petty crimes, such as illegal assembly, accidental injury, or defamation of character, is considered false imprisonment under Section 220 of the Criminal Code.

In Portugal, Article 255 of the Code of Criminal Procedure gives any person the right to detain another in flagrante delicto if the latter's conduct is punishable by imprisonment, and there is no law enforcement authority available in due time. Similarly, in Russia, any person is allowed to arrest someone committing a crime under Articles 37 and 38 of the Criminal Code, but the arrest must be carried out with minimal force, and the arrestee must be surrendered to the police without delay.

Lawful arrest vs. false imprisonment

False imprisonment and false arrest are distinct legal concepts, though they are often used interchangeably. False imprisonment occurs when one person unlawfully restricts another's freedom of movement against their will without any legal justification or consent. This can be perpetrated by anyone, regardless of a claim of authority, and does not require a literal prison or physical force. For example, a person may be falsely imprisoned through the use of threats or by being locked in a room, building, or vehicle.

False arrest, on the other hand, involves unlawful restraint or detention by a person with asserted legal authority to make an arrest. This includes situations where a police officer detains someone without reasonable suspicion, probable cause, or an arrest warrant. In the United States, false arrest and false imprisonment are considered violations of a person's Fourth Amendment rights, which protect against unreasonable seizures.

To prove false imprisonment, a plaintiff must demonstrate that they were confined or restrained against their will and that the confiner had no lawful justification. This can be established through various forms of evidence, including physical barriers, physical force, or invalid use of legal authority. For example, in the case of R v Governor of Brockhill Prison, ex p Evans, it was held that the imprisonment of a claimant was false imprisonment, even if it was done in good faith and considered lawful.

In contrast, lawful arrest involves the detention of an individual by a person with legal authority to do so, such as a police officer acting under a valid warrant or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Lawful arrest does not violate an individual's rights and is carried out in accordance with legal procedures and protections.

It is important to note that the specific definitions and implications of false arrest and false imprisonment may vary by jurisdiction, and it is always advisable to consult an experienced attorney for legal advice.

Intent to imprison

False imprisonment is the unlawful restraint of a person against their will by someone without legal authority or justification. It is a violation of a person's Fourth Amendment rights, which protect against unreasonable seizures. False imprisonment is both a crime and a civil wrong, like other offences including assault and battery.

The intent to imprison is a critical aspect of false imprisonment, and it is this intention to restrict another's freedom of movement that matters, rather than the intention to falsely imprison. In other words, the defendant must have willfully acted with the intention to confine the plaintiff without their consent and without legal authority. This intent is a key distinction between false imprisonment and false arrest, as false arrest may be committed by those with asserted legal authority to make arrests, such as police officers.

False imprisonment can be committed by anyone and does not require a literal prison. It can occur in a room, on the street, or even in a moving vehicle. The plaintiff must prove that they were confined or restrained against their will and that the confiner had no lawful justification. The act of restraint can be a physical barrier, the use of physical force, a failure to release, or an invalid use of legal authority. For example, a person who intentionally locks another in a room with no means of escape, without consent, and without legal authority, is committing false imprisonment.

In most states, the actual use of force is not necessary for false imprisonment, as a credible threat to use force is sufficient. The key question is whether a reasonable person would believe they are being restrained. For instance, if a robber orders customers to get down on the floor, threatening to shoot them if they try to leave, the captive bank customers may be able to claim false imprisonment.

False imprisonment is an intentional tort, and to make a claim, the plaintiff must prove the intentional restraint of another person in a confined area, that the restrained person did not consent, and that the restrained person was aware of the restraint.

Physical barriers and force

Physical barriers refer to the use of tangible obstacles to restrict an individual's movement. This could include locked doors, locked vehicles, or any other means that prevent the person from leaving a specific area. For example, if someone is intentionally locked in a room without a way out and without their consent, it constitutes false imprisonment.

Physical force, or the threat of physical force, is another aspect of false imprisonment. This involves the use of violence or the threat of violence to restrain an individual. For instance, in the case of an armed bank robbery, if the robber threatens to shoot customers who try to leave, the customers are being held against their will due to the risk of physical harm.

It is important to note that the presence of physical force is not mandatory for false imprisonment. The mere threat of imprisonment or the use of invalid legal authority can also constitute false imprisonment. Additionally, the intent to make an arrest is not necessary for false imprisonment, as it can be perpetrated by anyone, regardless of their authority to arrest.

In summary, physical barriers and force are key components of false imprisonment, which involves unlawfully restricting an individual's freedom of movement. Physical barriers can include locked doors or vehicles, while physical force or its threat involves violence or intimidation to restrain the victim. Understanding these elements is essential to distinguish false imprisonment from false arrest and to seek legal recourse.

Defences against false imprisonment

False imprisonment occurs when a person intentionally restricts another person's movement within any area without legal authority, justification, or the restrained person's permission. It is a common-law felony and a tort.

• Consent: If the alleged victim consented to being restrained, it is not false imprisonment. For example, in Hanna v. Marshall Field & Co., the plaintiff's claim was nullified because they had voluntarily consented to the confinement.
• Probable cause: Probable cause is a complete defence against false imprisonment. It is defined as a state of facts that would lead a person of ordinary caution and prudence to believe or entertain an honest and strong suspicion that the person accused is guilty of the offence charged.
• Necessity: If the defendant had to imprison the plaintiff, they may have had a lawful justification for doing so.
• Shopkeeper's privilege: This defence states that a shopkeeper defendant who reasonably believes that the plaintiff has stolen or is attempting to steal something from them may detain the plaintiff.
• Legal authority: If the restraint or arrest is under legal authority or justification, it is not false imprisonment. For example, if a parent or legal guardian of a child denies the child's request to leave their house, this would not ordinarily constitute false imprisonment.
• Volenti non fit injuria: This defence applies when the plaintiff intentionally places themselves in a dangerous or harmful position. For example, in Roles v. Nathan, the defendant was not held liable for the deaths of two chimney sweepers from carbon monoxide poisoning, as the deceased had been warned of the risks.

Frequently asked questions