Home With a Person

With a Person

False Imprisonment at a Glance

False Imprisonment at a Glance

Intention to commit false imprisonment clarifies awareness by the imprisoning party that no such authority of jurisdiction to detain another exists, and that the offender knowingly intends to hold the detainee against their will. 
 
 
Restraint elements consist of "total restraint", which stipulates that the detainee must be unable to escape without risking their safety within reason. Awareness indicates that the detainee must be aware that he or she is being falsely imprisoned, and must not give consent to the act. Any harm that befalls the detainee, aware or unaware supersedes the awareness requirement.
 
 
Law enforcement officers in the United States have the right to detain suspects without a writ of habeus corpus (arrest warrant), if they have probable cause to believe the suspect has committed a crime. 
 
 
Law enforcement officers also operate under the leniency of Reasonable Suspicion that the suspect is in the act or has intention to commit a crime, for which they may detain the suspect. Such charges may be disputed and dropped in court, but the arresting officer is not liable to charges of False Imprisonment should he or she present cause for reasonable suspicion of the suspect.
 
 
Loss prevention personnel and facility security operate in the United States under the Shopkeepers Privilege, which attributes the right to detain a suspected trespasser or shoplifter for a brief amount of time to conduct a preliminary investigation.  
 
 
The goal of this preliminary investigation is to determine whether or not law enforcement involvement is needed in the matter.  Just usage of the Shopkeeper's Privilege involves Reasonable Suspicion or evidence that the suspect has violated the premises or inventory, and detention of the suspect using reasonable force. It is to be noted that in many corporate security manuals, physically restraining a suspect is against protocol. 
 
 
Shoplifters and trespassers fleeing the scene will have their descriptions given to local law enforcement authorities.  Detention of a suspect under the Shopkeepers privilege may not legally last more than ten or fifteen minutes before the suspect is either released or law enforcement is contacted.
 
 
Plaintiffs of false imprisonment must prove with the aid of a criminal attorney that they were imprisoned willfully without consent and in conditions improper under law. False imprisonment litigation, if successful, may yield state prison time of three to five years as well as punitive damage awards of up to twenty thousand dollars on charges not involving any other tort or felony offenses.  A criminal attorney may press additional charges in conjunction with false imprisonment if there is additional damage or harm – physical or psychological – inflicted on the plaintiff.

Criterias of a Infliction of Mental Distress Charges

Criterias of a Infliction of Mental Distress Charges

To be charged with infliction of mental distress, a defendant must have acted in a matter that satisfied specified judgment criteria. 
In several US jurisdictions, such as Arkansas and New York, the incident of the infliction must take place in public for it to classify as a tort. The incident must be observable and take place in a venue not confined to the plaintiff’s home or other private locations. 
It is noteworthy that in these jurisdictions, claims for infliction of Mental distress are often dismissed as superfluous litigation. Plaintiffs seeking damages must have witnesses and clear-cut anxiety test results proving to the court that the defendant’s actions caused a direct problem of stress anxiety that interferes with their daily life.  
In the state of new york, notably, no such claims of Infliction of Mental Distress have ever been granted judgement for the plaintiff, on the ground that “no such conduct has been sufficiently outrageous as to satisfy the court’s criteria”.
Infliction of mental distress is a common claim for victims or satire or public defamation. Many victims of criticism in the press have attempted to sue as tort, but have been found against by courts, usually under the stipulations of the First Amendment. 
In these instances, it is more in the interest of a plaintiff to sue for slander rather than tort Infliction of Mental Distress, as the success rates are much higher in civil litigation than in tort litigation involving publications and the media.

Committing Battery in Tort Law

Committing Battery in Tort Law

Charges of tort battery are often linked with charges of criminal 
In many civil tort battery cases, the intent to commit battery is transferable to other parties. For example, bystanders unintentionally injured in an assault on a third party may sue for tort battery, as they were still struck by the defendant’s negligent aggressive actions. 
This is different than the transferability of assault, which clearly stipulates an intent requirement. However, if a persons actions resulted in the injury of another without aggressive intent or gross negligence, the court may dismiss battery charges based on lack of either intent or negligence on behalf of the defendant.
Defenses to the tort charge of battery include the standard defenses of intentional interference with person. Necessity of the battery may be demonstrated by proving a self-defense counterclaim – that the plaintiff in the tort battery suit posed an equal and opposite threat of force to the defendant that warranted the battery. 
Consent, as in assault charges, is a valid defense if the battery in question is occupational or previously agreed to before it is committed. Professional athletes are not liable to battery charges if the actions that would precipitate the charges occur within normal course of play.  Actions such as brawls, spectator violence and misconduct are not considered consensual and may lead to tort battery charges for the offenders.

Committing Assault in Tort Law

Committing Assault in Tort Law

Assault in the United States is a broadly defined charge of violent crime which constitutes an attempt to commit battery 
Assault charges may be as minor as the classification of Simple assault, which does not result in any bodily injury upon the plaintiff. Simple assault is the violation of one’s personal space without consent that does not result in physical harm. Importantly, simple assault charges, unlike menacing charges, must result in physical contact. 
If no physical contact occurs between the plaintiff and defendant in a simple assault claim, there can be no judgment for the plaintiff, even if the court deems the defendant’s conduct inappropriate. Charges of harassment or obscenity are options for plaintiffs who feel violated but were not physically contacted by the offender.  
Aggravated Assault charges are treated as felonies and include attempts to cause severe incapacitating bodily injury to another which needs to be foreseen, or attempts to injure another with a deadly weapon. If the attempts are successful, the Aggravated Assault charges will be pressed in conjunction with Battery or weapon charges, respectively. 
Aggravated Assault in the United States also includes attempts to have sexual intercourse with minors under the age of fourteen, modifying the charge to Aggravated Sexual Assault or possibly Aggravated Rape, which is a capital offense that may result in a death sentence in some US states.
Victims of police brutality or excessive force may attempt to press charges against their arresting officers for assault and possibly misconduct.  Police, however, have the authority to use reasonable and equal force to subdue suspects, which may and often do negate actions that would be considered assault by civilians.
In most jurisdictions, consent is a complete defenseConsent is given by athletes through waivers, specifying their consent to the official risks of their profession, and thus relegating their right to sue over routine injuries or threats they may suffer at work. Exceptions to this include out-of-the-ordinary conduct, such as brawls, spectator violence, or violating the rules of conduct. 
A professional fighter who assaults an opponent after the bell or during a time-out may be subject to assault charges as his actions did not follow protocol agreed to in the waivers, and thus were not considered consented to by the plaintiff.