Common law; Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 340(c); CACI No. 1400
False imprisonment: one year, and the shopkeeper who guessed right is protected
A claim in California superior courts · Last verified August 26, 2026
False imprisonment is the unlawful restraint of someone's freedom of movement. It needs no locks, no force, and no injury — a threat that a reasonable person would submit to is enough.
Two things about it surprise almost everyone.
The deadline is one year, under CCP § 340(c) — the same subdivision as defamation, and the shortest in California tort practice. A plaintiff who assumes the ordinary two-year personal injury period has lost the claim.
And a store that detained you is often privileged, even if you had stolen nothing. The shopkeeper's privilege turns on probable cause, not on whether the suspicion turned out to be right.
What the claim is
Someone intentionally confined you, without lawful privilege, for an appreciable time, and you did not consent.
The recurring situations: a store detaining a suspected shoplifter; an arrest without probable cause; a security guard blocking someone from leaving; an employer confining an employee during an interrogation; a hospital or care facility preventing a patient from leaving; a private dispute in which someone is physically prevented from going.
Where the right comes from
Common law. False arrest is not a separate tort — it is false imprisonment effected by an asserted legal authority to arrest, and the elements are the same.
What a plaintiff has to prove — CACI No. 1400
- The defendant intentionally deprived the plaintiff of freedom of movement by use of physical barriers, force, threats of force, menace, fraud, deceit, or unreasonable duress.
- The confinement was for an appreciable period of time, however brief.
- The plaintiff did not consent.
- The plaintiff was harmed.
- The defendant's conduct was a substantial factor in causing the harm.
Related instructions cover the privileged arrests: CACI No. 1401 for an arrest by a peace officer without a warrant, and CACI No. 1403 for an arrest by a private citizen.
No physical force is required. Submission to an apparent authority, or to a threat a reasonable person would not resist, is confinement. A person told they cannot leave until they sign something, who reasonably believes it, is confined.
But moral pressure is not enough. A person free to walk out who chooses to stay — to clear their name, to avoid embarrassment, because they were asked politely — has not been confined.
"Appreciable time" is short. Minutes suffice; the tort has no minimum duration beyond the momentary.
And the plaintiff generally must have been aware of the confinement at the time, or have been harmed by it.
How long you have to file
One year, under CCP § 340(c).
It runs from the end of the confinement, not from its beginning — the tort is complete when the restraint ends, which matters where someone was held for an extended period.
This is the trap on the page. Assault, battery, and negligence all carry two years. False imprisonment carries one, and it is routinely pleaded alongside claims with the longer period, so the whole complaint can be timely except this count.
Six months to present a government claim where a public entity or officer is involved — which comes first, and which is the real deadline in any wrongful arrest case.
Tolling for minority or incapacity applies under CCP § 352.
What has to happen before you file
Nothing, against a private defendant.
Against a public entity or peace officer: the Government Claims Act six-month presentation requirement, pleaded and proved.
A wrongful arrest case therefore runs on two short clocks — six months to present, one year to file — and it is among the easiest claims in California to lose on timing alone.
Who can be sued — and who cannot
Anyone who confined, or who directed or instigated the confinement. A store that summons police and supplies the accusation may be liable for what follows, though merely reporting suspected crime to the authorities is generally protected.
Peace officers, where the arrest was without lawful authority. An arrest with probable cause is privileged, and an officer executing a facially valid warrant is protected even if the warrant was wrongly issued.
Employers and public entities, vicariously, for confinement within the scope of employment.
Not someone who merely reported a crime. Communications to law enforcement are protected, and where the report was false and malicious the claim is malicious prosecution, not false imprisonment.
Common defenses
The shopkeeper's privilege
A merchant may detain a person when the merchant has probable cause to believe the person is attempting to unlawfully take merchandise — for a reasonable time, in a reasonable manner, to conduct an investigation.
Probable cause is the test, not correctness. A store that reasonably believed someone was shoplifting is privileged even if they were wrong, and even if nothing was taken.
The privilege has real limits, and they are where these cases are won. Detention beyond a reasonable time, in an unreasonable manner, with excessive force, or continued after the suspicion is dispelled, exceeds the privilege and revives the claim.
The other defenses
Consent, express or implied.
Lawful arrest. An arrest supported by probable cause is privileged, whether by an officer or by a private citizen acting within the citizen's arrest statutes.
A valid warrant, regularly issued and facially valid.
Legal authority, including lawful detentions under mental health, public health, or child protection statutes.
Reasonable force in self-defense or defense of property, so long as the restraint was reasonable and brief.
No confinement — the plaintiff was free to leave and chose not to. The most common defense in employment interrogation cases.
Workers' compensation exclusivity, for confinement arising out of employment.
Anti-SLAPP, where the claim arises from a report to authorities or from litigation conduct — and the litigation privilege at Civil Code § 47(b) bars a claim founded on statements made in or about a proceeding.
The one-year period, and the Government Claims Act.
What the claim pays
General damages for the loss of liberty itself, humiliation, and mental suffering — recoverable without proof of physical injury or economic loss. This is the substance of most of these claims, and it is why a brief detention with no other consequence is still worth bringing.
Special damages — lost earnings, medical costs, harm to reputation.
Punitive damages under Civil Code § 3294 on clear and convincing proof of oppression, fraud, or malice. Not against a public entity; available against an individual.
Statutory enhancements where a civil rights claim is pleaded alongside: the Bane Act attaches treble damages with a $4,000 minimum and attorney's fees, and a federal claim supplies its own fee provision. In a wrongful arrest case the statutory claims are usually worth more than the common law one, which is the practical reason to plead them together.
No fee-shifting on the common law claim.
Jury trial: yes.
What people get wrong
"I have two years like any injury claim." One year, under CCP § 340(c) — and six months to present a government claim if police or a public entity were involved.
"They didn't lock me in." Physical barriers are not required. Submission to a threat or an apparent authority is confinement.
"The store was wrong about me, so they're liable." Not if they had probable cause. The shopkeeper's privilege protects a reasonable but mistaken belief.
"They held me for two hours to wait for police — that's fine." Possibly not. The privilege covers a reasonable time in a reasonable manner, and exceeding it revives the claim.
"I wasn't hurt." The loss of liberty itself is compensable, along with humiliation and mental suffering.
"They called the police on me for no reason." That is generally protected. If the report was knowingly false and a prosecution followed, the claim is malicious prosecution.
"I stayed to explain myself, so I was confined." If you were free to leave, you were not.
"False arrest is a different claim." It is the same tort, effected under a claim of legal authority.
Where it came from
False imprisonment is one of the original trespass actions, and like battery it was actionable without proof of damage because the interest it protected — personal liberty — was thought too important to require quantification.
Its short limitations period is a survival of that grouping. CCP § 340 collects the claims the Legislature treated as needing prompt resolution — libel, slander, false imprisonment, seduction — and gave them one year while ordinary personal injury claims eventually moved to two. The grouping reflects nineteenth-century judgments about which claims went stale quickly, and the one-year period has stayed put while the tort's most common modern application became the wrongful arrest.
The shopkeeper's privilege is the significant modern addition. Retail theft created a practical problem the common law had no answer for: a merchant who detained a suspected thief risked a false imprisonment claim if wrong, while one who did nothing lost the goods. The privilege resolves it in the merchant's favour on a probable cause standard — deliberately protecting the reasonable mistake, and just as deliberately withdrawing protection from an unreasonable detention.
Common questions
How long do I have to sue for false imprisonment?
One year, under CCP § 340(c) — the shortest tort deadline in California, shared with defamation. If a public entity or peace officer was involved, you must also present a government claim within six months.
Do they have to physically lock me up?
No. Confinement can be accomplished by threats, by apparent authority, or by any means that would cause a reasonable person to believe they were not free to leave.
A store detained me and I had not stolen anything. Can I sue?
Often not. The shopkeeper's privilege protects a merchant who had probable cause to suspect theft, even if the suspicion was wrong — provided the detention was for a reasonable time and conducted reasonably. Exceeding those limits revives the claim.
I was not physically hurt. Is there anything to recover?
Yes. The loss of liberty, humiliation, and mental suffering are compensable without proof of physical injury or financial loss.
Someone reported me to the police falsely. Is that false imprisonment?
Generally not — reports to law enforcement are protected. If a prosecution followed and it was brought without probable cause and with malice, the claim is malicious prosecution.
Is false arrest a separate claim?
No. False arrest is false imprisonment carried out under an asserted legal authority to arrest, with the same elements and the same one-year deadline.