Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 16.003(a), 124.001, 124.002
False imprisonment in Texas — two years, and the shopkeeper's privilege usually decides it
A claim in Texas district and county courts · Last verified August 26, 2026
False imprisonment is the oldest and simplest of the intentional torts: someone confined you and had no right to. Texas states it in three elements and then hands most defendants a statutory privilege that answers it.
The privilege is the case. Under CPRC § 124.001, a person who reasonably believes another has stolen or is attempting to steal property may detain that person in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable time to investigate ownership. What is left to litigate is the word "reasonable," twice.
What the claim is
Someone willfully detained you, you did not consent, and there was no legal authority for it.
Where the right comes from
Common law, with the merchant's privilege supplied by CPRC chapter 124.
What a plaintiff has to prove
- A willful detention — by physical force, by threat of force, or by a false assertion of legal authority;
- Without consent; and
- Without authority of law.
Detention does not require a locked room or a hand on the arm. It requires that the plaintiff's freedom of movement was restrained in a way a reasonable person would not have felt free to leave. A demand backed by the appearance of authority can be enough; a request the plaintiff was free to refuse is not.
The confinement must be complete. If a reasonable means of escape was known and available, there was no imprisonment.
The shopkeeper's privilege
Section 124.001(a) reads: a person "who reasonably believes that another has stolen or is attempting to steal property is privileged to detain that person in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable time to investigate ownership of the property."
Three limits are built into that sentence.
A reasonable belief, not certainty. The privilege protects the store that was wrong, provided the belief was reasonable when the detention began. An anti-theft alarm, an employee's observation, a security recording — any of these can supply it.
A reasonable manner. Handcuffs, a locked room, threats, physical force beyond what the situation called for, or a detention conducted to humiliate takes the store outside the privilege.
A reasonable time, to investigate ownership. The purpose is bounded. A store may check the receipt, the bag, the video. Holding someone for an hour waiting on police, interrogating them, or pressing for a confession is a different activity, and the privilege does not cover it.
Lose any one of the three and the store is back to defending a false imprisonment claim without a privilege.
The theft education program — new since 2023
Chapter 124 was rewritten in 2023 to add an alternative to calling the police. Under § 124.001(b), a merchant may offer a suspected shoplifter the chance to complete a theft education program under § 124.002 instead of reporting the offence.
A merchant who makes the offer must, under § 124.001(c), notify the person of the opportunity, explain the civil and criminal remedies available to the merchant and the state — including that the merchant keeps the right to report if the program is not completed — and keep records of its offer criteria and terms for at least two years.
The provisions that matter to a person offered one:
- § 124.002(b) — a provider may not discriminate based on race, colour, religion, sex, familial status or national origin, or on the ability to pay;
- § 124.002(c) — a provider charging a fee must have a plan for discounts, payment schedules or scholarships for a person verified as indigent, and may not compensate the merchant who made the offer;
- § 124.002(d) — no admission of guilt may be required to participate;
- § 124.002(e) — a person who successfully completes the program "may not be subject to any additional civil penalties under any other provision of law."
That last provision closes off the civil demand letter under the Texas Theft Liability Act. Completion is a statutory answer to it.
How long you have to file
Two years. A false imprisonment claim is a personal injury claim, and it runs on CPRC § 16.003(a).
This is the point most often misstated. CPRC § 16.002(a) sets a one-year period for "malicious prosecution, libel, slander, or breach of promise of marriage." False imprisonment is not on that list. A store detention that leads to a dropped charge produces two claims with two clocks — one year to sue for malicious prosecution, two for false imprisonment.
The claim accrues when the detention ends.
What has to happen before you file
Nothing.
What the claim pays
Actual damages — mental anguish, humiliation, lost time, lost wages, and any physical injury suffered during the restraint. There is no requirement of physical harm; the indignity of the confinement is itself the injury.
Exemplary damages, where malice is proved by clear and convincing evidence under CPRC § 41.003 — which a detention conducted to punish or humiliate can support — subject to the cap in CPRC § 41.008.
No attorney's fees.
Who can be sued
The person who detained you, and their employer for conduct within the course and scope of employment. A retailer is answerable for its loss-prevention staff, and a security company for its guards.
A police officer, rarely. An officer with a valid warrant or probable cause has authority of law, and official immunity protects good-faith discretionary acts within the scope of authority.
A private person making a citizen's arrest, where the statutory conditions for one were absent.
Common defenses
- The § 124.001 privilege, where the belief, the manner and the duration were reasonable.
- Consent — the plaintiff agreed to wait, agreed to the bag check, agreed to sit in the office.
- Legal authority — a valid arrest, a lawful detention, an officer acting on probable cause.
- No complete confinement, because a reasonable means of exit was available and known.
- Limitations.
What people get wrong
The deadline is two years, not one. Section 16.002 does not cover false imprisonment.
A store detention is not automatically false imprisonment. Being stopped, wrongly, by loss prevention is lawful if the belief was reasonable and the stop was brief and civil.
Being wrong does not cost the store the privilege. Section 124.001 turns on reasonable belief, not on whether anything was stolen.
Confinement does not require touching or a locked door. A false assertion of authority that a reasonable person would obey is a detention.
Completing a theft education program has civil consequences. Under § 124.002(e), completion blocks additional civil penalties, which includes the theft liability demand.
Where it came from
False imprisonment is one of the trespass torts the common law brought over intact, and it has barely changed: three elements, no requirement of physical harm, no requirement of malice.
What has changed is the setting. The modern claim is almost entirely a retail claim, and Texas responded to that in two steps. Chapter 124 gave merchants a privilege to investigate, which kept ordinary loss prevention out of the courts while leaving overreach actionable. The 2023 amendments went further and gave merchants a way to resolve a suspected theft without involving the criminal system at all — with conditions attached, including a bar on stacking civil penalties on top of it.
The tort survives for the cases the privilege does not reach: the detention that goes on too long, the one conducted with force, the one that was never about investigating ownership.
Common questions
How long do I have to sue for false imprisonment in Texas?
Two years from the end of the detention.
Can a store detain me if they think I shoplifted?
Yes. Section 124.001 privileges a detention in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable time to investigate ownership, where the merchant reasonably believed a theft occurred.
What if the store was wrong and I stole nothing?
The privilege turns on reasonable belief, not on the outcome. A store that reasonably suspected you is protected even if you were innocent.
When does the store lose the privilege?
When the detention was unreasonable in manner or length, or was used for something other than investigating ownership — an interrogation, a forced confession, a hold for hours.
Can I recover attorney's fees?
No.
The store offered me a theft education class instead of calling the police. What does that do?
If you complete it, § 124.002(e) bars additional civil penalties under other law, including a theft liability demand. You cannot be required to admit guilt to take part.