Editing False imprisonment (section)

===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====
{{main|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.<ref name="bidfell">{{cite journal |last1=Bidfell |first1=Connor |title=Shopkeeper's Privilege: Coming to a Store near You |journal=Canadian Bar Review |date=2019 |volume=97 |issue=3 |page=558}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Beato |first1=Alexandra |last2=Davies |first2=Melissa |title=Arrests of Persons |journal=Georgia State University Law Review |date=2021 |volume=38 |page=25}}</ref>

The shopkeeper's privilege is not as broad as police officer's privilege to arrest.<ref name="bidfell"/> The shopkeeper may only detain the suspect for a comparatively short period of time. If a shopkeeper unreasonably detains the suspect, uses excessive force to detain the suspect, or fails to notify the police within a reasonable time after detaining the suspect, then the detention may constitute false imprisonment and may result in an award of [[damages]]. In jurisdictions without the privilege, detention must meet the jurisdiction's standards for a [[citizen's arrest]].<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Flanders |first1=Chad |last2=Brooks |first2=Raina |last3=Compton |first3=Jack |last4=Riley |first4=Liz |title=The Puzzling Persistence of Citizen's Arrest Laws and the Need to Revisit Them |journal=Howard Law Journal |date=2020 |volume=64 |page=161}}</ref>

=====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]].<ref name="rest120a">See § 120A {{cite book|title=Restatement (second) of Torts|date=1965|publisher=American Law Institute|isbn=0314012710|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=J642AQAAIAAJ|access-date=6 November 2017}}</ref>

=====Requirement=====
In order for a customer to be detained, the shopkeeper must:<ref>{{Cite web|url = http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/shopkeepers-privilege/|title = Shopkeepers Privilege Law & Legal Definition|access-date = 12 September 2014|website = USLegal|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20150109141707/http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/shopkeepers-privilege/|archive-date = 2015-01-09|url-status = live}}</ref>
# 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.<ref>{{cite web|title=Enright v. Groves, 39 Colo.App. 39, 560 P.2d 851 (Colo. Ct. App. 1977)|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2650321765601684332|website=Google Scholar|access-date=6 November 2017}}</ref>

=====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.<ref name="Woman lost in system serves 154 days instead of 48 hours; prosecutor filed motion to get her out">{{cite web | url=http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/woman_lost_in_system_serves_154_days_instead_of_48_hours_prosecutor_filed_m/ | title=Woman lost in system serves 154 days instead of 48 hours; prosecutor filed motion to get her out | publisher=American Bar Association | date=28 January 2014 | access-date=31 January 2014 | author=Neil, Martha | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150311205503/http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/woman_lost_in_system_serves_154_days_instead_of_48_hours_prosecutor_filed_m/ | archive-date=2015-03-11 | url-status=live }}</ref> An order by Judge Jerry Jacobi<ref name="'A BIG SCREW UP:' Woman sentenced to two days in Clark County jail serves five months">{{cite web | url=http://www.newsandtribune.com/local/x1427971265/A-BIG-SCREW-UP-Woman-sentenced-to-two-days-in-Clark-County-jail-serves-five-months | title='A BIG SCREW UP:' Woman sentenced to two days in Clark County jail serves five months | publisher=News and Tribune | date=24 January 2014 | access-date=31 January 2014 | author=POPP, GARY | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140131070415/http://www.newsandtribune.com/local/x1427971265/A-BIG-SCREW-UP-Woman-sentenced-to-two-days-in-Clark-County-jail-serves-five-months | archive-date=2014-01-31 | url-status=live }}</ref> 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."<ref name="Woman lost in system serves 154 days instead of 48 hours; prosecutor filed motion to get her out"/> After a motion by Prosecutor Gilbert, Special Judge Steve Fleece ordered Hoffman released and said Hoffman's incarceration was "a big screw up".<ref name="'A BIG SCREW UP:' Woman sentenced to two days in Clark County jail serves five months"/>

=====Louisiana=====
In a Louisiana case in the United States, a pharmacist and his pharmacy were found liable by a trial court for false imprisonment. They stalled for time and instructed a patient to wait while simultaneously and without the patient's knowledge calling the police. The pharmacist was suspicious of the patient's prescription, which her doctor had called in previously. When the police arrived, they arrested the patient.  While the patient was in jail, the police verified with her doctor that the prescription was authentic and that it was meant for her.  After this incident, the patient sued the pharmacy and its employees. She received $20,000 damages. An appeals court reversed the judgment, because it believed the elements of false imprisonment were not met.<ref>{{cite web|title=''Taylor v. Johnson'', 796 So.2d 11 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2001)|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2672490429435759422|website=Google Scholar|access-date=6 November 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Simonsmeier|first1=Larry M.|title=False Imprisonment Alleged When Patient Is Detained with Suspicious Rx|url=http://www.pharmacytimes.com/publications/issue/2005/2005-03/2005-03-9382|journal=Pharmacy Times|access-date=6 November 2017|date=1 March 2005|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171107013123/http://www.pharmacytimes.com/publications/issue/2005/2005-03/2005-03-9382|archive-date=2017-11-07|url-status=live}}</ref>