...False Imprisonment

[*P23] Appellants have argued that they were falsely imprisoned because Jones "followed them through the mall and refused to let them leave." Appellants have asserted that the trial court erred in [**10] granting a directed verdict in favor of Appellees on this claim. Appellees have asserted that Appellants presented no evidence of confinement.

[*P24] HN6To establish a claim of false imprisonment, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant intentionally confined the plaintiff within a limited area, for any appreciable time, without lawful privilege or the plaintiff's consent. Witcher v. Fairlawn (1996), 113 Ohio App.3d 214, 217, 680 N.E.2d 713, citing Feliciano v. Kreiger (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 69, 71, 362 N.E.2d 646. "Confinement consists of a total detention or restraint upon [the plaintiff's] freedom of locomotion, imposed by force or threats." (Quotations and citations omitted.)(Alterations original.) Witcher, 113 Ohio App.3d at 217. "If the plaintiff does not offer any proof of confinement, then the cause of action fails as a matter of law." Id.

[*P25] By all accounts, Appellants walked away from Jones after he informed them of his suspicions. Jones testified that he followed them to try and find mall security. It is undisputed that as Appellants arrived at the Dillard's south store, they ran into someone they knew, stopped walking, and engaged [**11] in conversation and a prayer session.

[*P26] Ed Martin ("Martin"), a Summit Mall security guard who approached Jones and Appellants outside the Dillard's south store, testified that Appellants were not detained when he arrived on the scene.

[*P27] Appellants testified that they felt Jones was not going to let them leave the mall unless he could look in their bags. Brooks felt she was free to leave after Jones looked in her bag and did not discover any stolen merchandise.

[*P28] We find that the record is void of an essential element to sustain a claim of false imprisonment. While this Court recognizes that Appellants testified they didn't "feel" they could leave, we find that their actions and Jones' actions do not establish false imprisonment. By Appellants' own testimony, they walked away from Jones and walked the length of the mall without being physically restrained or confined in any way. Appellants only stopped walking when they encountered an acquaintance. The record shows that even after Jones had physical contact with Anderson, Appellants were still able to walk away without Jones hindering their movement. The trial testimony contains no evidence that Jones [**12] detained or restrained Appellants. Further, Martin testified that once he arrived on the scene he did not witness Jones confine Appellants.

[*P29] Based on the foregoing, we find that Appellants failed to present evidence to establish the essential element of confinement for their false imprisonment claim. Without a confinement, their claim fails as a matter of law and a directed verdict in Appellees' favor was properly granted. ...

How do you know it isnt an emergency? How do you know the situation isn't going to turn hostile? What if a knife or gun is drawn?

If not showing a receipt at the door makes any body's life miserable - they have some serious issues.

Rosa Parks was just a big attention whore.

I don't think his rights as a human being are worth any less than Rosa Parks. Do you?

So is that a no? His rights are worth less? Why?

My main argument throughout this entire thread has been this "search" is not a pressing civil rights issue, is not an invasion of privacy and certainly in no way is equal to the oppression faced by minorities and the events that lead up to Rosa Parks. You, and some others, obviously feel differently about it. More power to you on your "cause", personally I'd rather expend my energy on more pressing and real risks to privacy/civil liberty.

I asked if you thought his rights were worth less. You quoted that question and responded that it wasn't the same as Rosa Parks. I could only assume that meant a No - I didn't realize you were just trying to dodge the question completely.