Also known as: false imprisonments · falsely imprison · falsely imprisoned · falsely imprisoning
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A tort and common-law misdemeanor consisting of the intentional confinement of another within fixed boundaries without legal justification or valid consent. Confinement is complete when the victim has no reasonable means of escape of which the victim is aware. Liability extends to those who instigate or participate in the unlawful confinement.
Francesca Fowler manages a restaurant and suspects employee Finn Fletcher of theft. She orders him into the walk-in refrigerator, closes the door, and states he will be released only after confessing. Finn pounds on the door and demands to leave, but Francesca keeps the door shut with no interior release available. Finn later sues for false imprisonment.
Felipe Figueroa serves as security chief on a cruise ship. After a guest complaint, he directs passenger Freya Freeman into a small cabin, stations crew outside the only door, and tells her she cannot leave until the ship reaches port the next day. Freya protests repeatedly and demands to walk the deck. She later files a criminal complaint alleging false imprisonment.
Forrest Falconer supervises a factory shift. He locks the main time-clock door at shift end and announces that workers must complete an interview before leaving. Fatou Fall objects but notices the alarmed secondary door remains available. She triggers the alarm and exits without completing the interview, then sues for false imprisonment.
Foster Forge security directs visitor Francesca Fowler away from a restricted hallway toward the main lobby exit. She protests that she has a right to retrieve her coat from the hallway but complies and leaves the building. She later claims false imprisonment based on the redirection.
Franklin Foundry owner Finn Fletcher instructs a guard to lock analyst Freya Freeman in a conference room during an internal investigation. The guard follows the order and refuses to release her despite her protests. Freya sues both the owner and the guard for false imprisonment.
A plaintiff brings a false imprisonment action in State A against a defendant who resides in State B and has no contacts with State A. The defendant never appeared or consented to jurisdiction. The court must determine whether it can exercise personal jurisdiction over the absent defendant to adjudicate the false imprisonment claim.
In February 1866, J.H. Mitchell obtained a judgment in an Oregon circuit court against Neff for less than $300 in an action for attorney services. At that time, Neff resided outside Oregon, received no personal service of process, and made no appearance in the case. The judgment was entered by default following constructive service by publication as authorized by the Oregon Code for non-resident defendants possessing property within the state. The Oregon Code also provided for attachment of a non-resident's property in money actions. No such attachment occurred with respect to the land at issue. Instead, after the judgment, an execution issued, leading to a levy on the land and its sale at a sheriff's auction. Pennoyer purchased the property at that sale and received a sheriff's deed. Separately, in 1866, the United States issued a patent to Neff for the same tract of land under the Donation Law of Oregon, which Neff valued at $15,000. Neff then brought suit against Pennoyer in the circuit court to recover possession of the premises based on his patent title. The lower court held the Oregon judgment invalid because of deficiencies in the affidavits used to obtain the publication order and to prove publication occurred. The Supreme Court of the United States granted review to consider the validity of the state court judgment and the resulting sheriff's sale.
View caseYes. Consent must be freely and voluntarily given by a person with legal capacity. Coercion, threats, or deception renders consent invalid, so a claim proceeds when the victim withdraws any initial cooperation or never consented freely.
Supporting sources
Yes. The confinement remains complete when the victim lacks knowledge of any reasonable escape route, even if one technically exists.
Supporting sources
No. Liability requires complete confinement within boundaries fixed by the actor. Merely blocking one direction while leaving other routes open does not satisfy the element.
Supporting sources
Yes. One who instigates or participates in the unlawful confinement is subject to liability for false imprisonment.
Supporting sources
Confinement occurs when the actor compels the victim to remain where the victim does not wish to remain or to go where the victim does not wish to go, accomplished by force, threats, or a show of authority.
Supporting sources
…the efficacy of such actions, and the jurisdiction of the court over them. In that case, the action was for damages for alleged false imprisonment of the plaintiff; and, upon his affidavit that the defendants had fled from the State, or had absconded or concealed themselves so that the ordinary process of law could not reach them, a…