Also known as: unlawful imprisonments · false imprisonment
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A tort and common-law misdemeanor consisting of the intentional confinement of another within fixed boundaries without the confined person's valid consent or legal justification. The confinement must be complete in all directions and the confined person must be aware of the restraint or harmed by it. Liability extends to those who instigate or participate in the unlawful restraint.
Ulysses Usher escorts Ursula Upton into a windowless office after accusing her of theft and stands in the doorway while telling her she cannot leave until she confesses. Ursula remains inside because she believes she has no way out. The manager's intentional act of positioning himself to block the only exit produces complete confinement of which Ursula is aware.
Uliana Ustinova orders Ursula Ureña into a small locked storage room and takes her keycard after suspecting sabotage. Ursula Ureña stays inside because the door will not open from within and she knows of no other exit. The supervisor's conduct unlawfully confines the worker without consent.
Usha Upton directs Ulysses Usher into a blast-proof control room during an inspection and closes the door that locks automatically from the outside. Ulysses Usher cannot open the door and is unaware of an emergency phone that could summon release. The confinement is complete because no reasonable means of escape is known to him.
Ursula Upton stands in a hallway and prevents Ulysses Usher from walking toward the east wing of the building where he holds a meeting. Ulysses Usher turns and leaves by another route without hindrance. The conduct does not create liability because it merely blocks one direction rather than confining movement in all directions.
Ursula Ureña assists Uliana Ustinova by holding the door shut while Uliana Ustinova orders a colleague into a supply closet and locks it. The colleague remains inside believing escape is impossible. Both participants are subject to liability for the resulting unlawful confinement.
An officer seizes Ulysses Usher by the arm and forces him to remain in place on a sidewalk while investigating a reported disturbance. Ulysses Usher submits because he reasonably believes he is not free to leave. The restraint constitutes confinement that must be evaluated for objective reasonableness under the circumstances.
In November 1984, Dethorne Graham, a diabetic, felt the onset of an insulin reaction while in Charlotte, North Carolina. He asked his friend William Berry to drive him to a convenience store to purchase orange juice to counteract the reaction. Upon entering the store and seeing people ahead in the checkout line, Graham hurried out without buying anything and asked Berry to drive him to a friend's house instead. Officer Connor of the Charlotte Police Department observed Graham's hasty entry and exit from the store and became suspicious. Connor followed Berry's car and made an investigative stop about one-half mile from the store. Although Berry explained that Graham was suffering from a sugar reaction, Connor ordered them to wait while he investigated what had happened at the store. Graham then got out of the car, ran around it twice, sat on the curb, and passed out briefly. Additional officers arrived on the scene in response to Connor's request for backup. They rolled Graham over on the sidewalk and cuffed his hands tightly behind his back, ignoring Berry's pleas to get him some sugar. One officer commented that Graham was drunk and said to lock him up. The officers lifted Graham up, placed him face down on the hood of Berry's car, shoved his face down when he asked them to check his wallet for a diabetic decal, and threw him headfirst into a police car. A friend brought orange juice but the officers refused to let Graham have it. Graham was eventually released after Connor received a report that he had done nothing wrong at the store. During the encounter Graham sustained a broken foot, cuts on his wrists, a bruised forehead, an injured shoulder, and a ringing in his right ear that continued afterward. Graham commenced this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the individual officers, alleging they had used excessive force. The District Court applied a four-factor test, found the force appropriate under the circumstances with no discernible injury and no malice, and granted respondents' motion for a directed verdict. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
No. Words or conduct that cause a reasonable person to believe escape is impossible can establish confinement when the defendant intends restraint and the plaintiff is aware of it. Blocking an exit with one's body or ordering someone into a locked room satisfies the elements.
Supporting sources
…jury found Williams guilty of two counts of forcible rape (Pen. Code § 261, now subd. (a)(2). ) and one count of false imprisonment (§ 236). He was sentenced to eight years in state prison. The Court of Appeal reversed, finding there was substantial evidence in support of defendant's request for a Mayberry…
…negligent transmission of letters or postal matter"); § 2680(h) (no liability for "[a]ny claim arising out of assault, battery, false imprisonment, false
…is not a party to the proceedings before this Court. : Petitioner also asserted pendent state-law claims of assault, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Those claims have been dismissed from the case and are not before this Court. : The majority did note that because Graham was not…
…of the United States to punish for a conspiracy to falsely imprison or murder within a State, than it would be to punish for false imprisonment or murder itself." And see United States v. Fox , 95 U.S. 670, 672. It is only state action of a "particular character" that is prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendment and against which the…
…the first trial. Id., at 194. But Smith could not leave well enough alone. He had the gall to sue, under 42 U. S. C. § 1983, for false imprisonment. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the jury verdict for the defendants, observing along the way that "our confidence in Smith's convictions is not diminished in the least.…
Confinement is complete when the plaintiff has no reasonable means of escape known to the plaintiff, even if an undisclosed exit exists. A locked room with an unknown buzzer or phone does not defeat the claim because the test focuses on the plaintiff's knowledge and options.
Supporting sources
No. Liability arises only when movement is restrained in all directions within fixed boundaries. Merely blocking one path while other routes remain open does not constitute the required confinement.
Supporting sources
Anyone who instigates or participates in the unlawful restraint is subject to liability, including supervisors who order subordinates to restrain a person and co-workers who assist by holding a door or blocking an exit.
Supporting sources
Yes. Consent that is freely and voluntarily given by a person with legal capacity defeats liability. Coercion, threats, deception, or incapacity due to youth or mental impairment renders consent invalid.
Supporting sources