False Imprisonment in Maryland

What is False Imprisonment?

“False imprisonment is the confinement or detention of a person against that person's will and without legal justification accomplished by force or threat of force.” (See Bowling v. State, No. 2165, at *5 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Oct. 12, 2018).)

“To constitute a case of false imprisonment there must be some direct restraint of the person; but to constitute imprisonment in such case, confinement in jail or prison is not essential. Any exercise of force, or threat of force, by which in fact the other person is deprived of his liberty, compelled to remain where he does not wish to remain, or to go where he does not wish to go, is an imprisonment; the essence of the tort consists in depriving the plaintiff of his liberty without lawful justification, and the good or evil intention of the defendant does not excuse or create the tort.” (See Mason v. Wrightson (1954) 205 Md. 481, 487.)

“Or, as said by this Court, any deprivation by one person of the liberty of another without his consent, whether by violence, threat or otherwise, constitutes an imprisonment, and if this is done unlawfully, it is false imprisonment without regard to whether it is done with or without probable cause.” (See id.)

Prima Facie Case for False Imprisonment

“Under Maryland common law, false arrest and false imprisonment are intentional torts. The essence of the civil wrong in each tort is an unlawful detention. The torts thus are separate causes of action that share the same elements.” (See Dett v. State (2005) 161 Md. App. 429, 441; Okwa v. Harper (2000) 360 Md. 161, 189-90, 757 A.2d 118.)

“The elements are:

1. the deprivation of the liberty of another;
2. without [his] consent; and
3. without legal justification.”

(See id; Heron v. Strader (2000) 361 Md. 258, 264, 761 A.2d 56; Montgomery Ward v. Wilson (1995) 339 Md. 701, 721, 664 A.2d 916; Great Atl. Pac. Tea Co. v. Paul (1970) 256 Md. 643, 654, 261 A.2d 731; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Barrack (1956) 210 Md. 168, 173, 122 A.2d 457.)

“The vast majority of false arrest and imprisonment cases focus on the third, legal justification, element of the torts. The interrelationship between false arrest and false imprisonment is such that the legal justification to detain element is the equivalent to legal authority under the law of arrest.” (See id; Ashton v. Brown (!995) 339 Md. 70, 120, 660 A.2d 447.)

“In Maryland, the tort of false imprisonment is defined as the deprivation of the liberty of another without his consent and without legal justification. Other states have further explicated upon the elements, and are helpful to our analysis. For example, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has further clarified the elements, citing favorably to the Restatement (2d) of Torts…” (See See Amaral v. Amaral, No. 0086, at *25 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Dec. 17, 2015); Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co. v. Paul (1970) 256 Md. 643, 654; State v. Dett (2006) 391 Md. 81, 92.)

“False imprisonment . . . entails liability to an actor if:

1. he acts intending to confine the other or a third person within boundaries fixed by the actor, and
2. his act directly or indirectly results in such a confinement of the other, and
3. the other is conscious of the confinement or is harmed by it.”

(See id; Gagliardi v. Lynn (1971) 285 A.2d 109, 111 n. 2.)

Burden of Proof and Standard of Review for False Imprisonment

“An action for false imprisonment arises when one unlawfully causes a deprivation of another's liberty against his will. It may also arise when one knowingly gives false information to a law enforcement officer which leads to another person's arrest. Nevertheless, a person is not liable for false imprisonment when in good faith he or she provides information, however mistaken, to law enforcement officers.” (See Nolton v. Brejon, Inc., No. 0981, at *8 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Aug. 11, 2016).)

“In order to prevail on a claim for false arrest, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant deprived him or her of his or her liberty without consent and without legal justification.” (See Green v. Brooks (1999) 125 Md. App. 349, 366; Scott v. Jenkins (1997) 345 Md. 21, 29; see also Ashton v. Brown (1995) 339 Md. 71, 119; Montgomery Ward v. Wilson (1995) 339 Md. 701, 721; Fine v. Kolodny (1971) 263 Md. 647, 651, cert. denied, 406 U.S. 928, 92 S.Ct. 1803 (1972); Fleisher v. Ensminger (1922) 140 Md. 604, 620; Lewin v. Uzuber (1886) 65 Md. 341, 348-49; Mitchell v. Lemon (1871) 34 Md. 176, 180.)

“In any action for false imprisonment it is necessary for the plaintiff to prove by a preponderance of evidence that he was deprived of his liberty by another without his consent and without legal justification.” (See Fine v. Kolodny (1971) 263 Md. 647, 651; Great Atlantic Pacific Tea Company v. Paul (1970) 256 Md. 643, 654, 261 A.2d 731.)

False Imprisonments Initiated by Private Parties

“Different considerations apply where the defendant in the false imprisonment action is not a police officer, but is a private party who instigated the allegedly wrongful arrest. With respect to warrantless arrests, if a person wrongfully procures another's arrest without probable cause, for example by falsely informing a police officer that the factual basis for a warrantless arrest exists, then the tort of false imprisonment may lie against the instigator even though the police officer would not be liable for false imprisonment.” (See Montgomery Ward v. Wilson (1995) 339 Md. 701, 721-22.)

“In addition to liability for the detention caused by a formal arrest itself, a private party may incur liability for false imprisonment by wrongfully detaining an individual while waiting for the police to arrive and make a formal arrest.” (See id.)

Legal Precedents and Case Law on False Imprisonment

It is well settled that “the tort of false imprisonment requires a deprivation of the liberty of another without his consent and without legal justification.” (See Montgomery Ward v. Wilson (1995) 339 Md. 701, 721; LaRonde v. Blount, No. 0831, at *14 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Aug. 17, 2015).)

It is also well settled that “while a third party who wrongfully instigates another's warrantless arrest may be liable for false imprisonment, the false imprisonment tort does not lie against either the instigator or the arresting officer where the plaintiff is not detained by the instigator and is arrested by a police officer pursuant to a facially valid warrant. Rather, to the extent that the instigator acts maliciously to secure the warrant for the plaintiff's arrest, the plaintiff's cause of action against the instigator is malicious prosecution.” (See Green v. Brooks (1999) 125 Md. App. 349, 370-71.)