(650) 735-2436   (209) 643-2436

False Imprisonment in New York

A while back, I put out a video on my Youtube channel about the Shopkeeper’s Privilege in California. In short, this is a justification that the proprietor of a business (e.g. a store) can use to detain someone they believe is committing a theft (e.g. shoplifting). Normally, detaining someone could be considered False Imprisonment and is something that the person who has been falsely imprisoned could be sued for. I learned about the Shopkeeper’s Privilege in law school in California, but the concept exists in other states also. I wrote about the New York Shopkeeper’s Privilege in a recent post and how it’s codified in statute, specifically n New York, for example, it’s Section 218 of the New York General Business Law. In this post, I’m going to describe the antecedent tort to Shopkeeper’s Privilege, namely what False Imprisonment involves. This post will specifically be about the False Imprisonment in New York. I’ll put out a subsequent post about how the tort of False Imprisonment is defined in California law. As with most things in law — I’m speaking generally and not specifically about California or New York — the tort of False Imprisonment has various criteria. If you are the plaintiff and you satisfy those criteria (e.g. your witnesses, evidence, etc are sufficient), you win. Keep in mind, however, that the defendant in your case will do everything in his/her power to show that your evidence not only doesn’t meet the criteria, but that the evidence shows precisely the opposite. In other words, you as the plaintiff haven’t come even remotely close to satisfying the criteria required to...

Shopkeeper’s Privilege in New York

A few years ago — 2016, it appears — I put out a video on my Youtube channel about the Shopkeeper’s Privilege in California. Here’s the video. This post will go over the Shopkeeper’s Privilege as it exists in New York. Like California, New York’s Shopkeeper’s Privilege is also statutory. The governing New York statute is Section 218 of the New York General Business Law. Section 218 provides that if a defendant is sued for “false arrest, false imprisonment, unlawful detention, defamation of character, assault, trespass, or invasion of civil rights” by a person detained at a retail establishment, the defendant may raise as a defense that the plaintiff was detained in a reasonable manner and for not more than a reasonable time to permit such investigation or questioning by a police officer or an owner or employee of the retail establishment and that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the plaintiff being detained had committed a theft. (Note: I am paraphrasing this somewhat due to length. If you’re going to actually use the statute (e.g. in court), do always take a look at the section’s actual text first). If you compare this to how California’s Shopkeeper’s Privilege works (see California Penal Code section 490.5(f)), you should see similarities. As always, this post is meant to only briefly go over a singular topic. If the Shopkeeper’s Privilege — either the California or New York one — please do additional research before proceeding and do not rely on just this blog post. Lastly, I’ll repeat again as I do at the end of every post related to New York...

Personal Injury Damages in a California Divorce

In a prior post, I went over the definition of “separate property” in New York. Under that definition (Section 236(B)(1)(d) of New York’s Domestic Relations Law, if you need to look it up), one of the things that is separate property in divorce in New York is damages received by a spouse for their personal injuries. In this post, I’m going to go over that same question — namely, is money received for personal injuries separate or not — for California. California and New York are similar politically, but remember that when it comes to divorces, California is a community property state and New York is not. Does that affect the answer? In short, yes. Money received for personal injuries sustained during the marriage is community property in California, but it is not automatically subject to division in the way community property typically is in a divorce. There are three California statutes that apply here, all of which are in the California Family Code. The first is section 780 of the California Family Code which provides the following. This entire statute is important, but I’ve put the super important parts in bold. “Except as provided in Section 781 and subject to the rules of allocation set forth in Section 2603, money and other property received or to be received by a married person in satisfaction of a judgment for damages for personal injuries, or pursuant to an agreement for the settlement or compromise of a claim for such damages, is community property if the cause of action for the damages arose during the marriage.” From this, the general rule...

False Imprisonment in California Torts

This post continues our tour through California tort law. Last time, I went over civil battery which is basically the defendant causing or committing some sort of harmful or offensive contact on the plaintiff without consent and resulting in injury. I’ve also blogged about battery as a criminal offense in California. This time, we’re going to go over false imprisonment which, unfortunately, can have several different definitions and criteria depending on the facts of the situation. The simplest definition is, in essence, that false imprisonment is when a defendant acts without lawful authority and restricts a plaintiff’s freedom of movement for some appreciable amount of time. ¬†Scofield v. Critical Air Medicine, Inc. (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 990, 1006. Defendant locking plaintiff in a room against plaintiff’s will, for instance, would qualify. Incidentally, false imprisonment is also a crime in California under California Penal Code section 236. The criminal definition and the simplest civil definition are identical. The civil definition gets more nuanced if you add in facts such as (1) was the imprisonment due to an arrest or not? (2) if there was an arrest, was it by a California Peace Officer or not? (3) if there was an arrest, was it with a warrant or not? If you’re interested, California defines the term “peace officer” in California Penal Code section 830. Given that some of these permutations don’t make sense (e.g. a private citizen won’t arrest you with a warrant, etc), there’s only three realistic possibilities: #1 – With Arrest by a Peace Officer With a Warrant If an officer has a warrant for your arrest, it does not...

Civil Battery in California Torts

A “tort” is, generally speaking, something that would allow a victim to sue the offender for money. This is different, obviously, from a “crime” in which the relief sought is not money, but rather incarceration. Incarceration can refer to many different things — community service, probation, etc — and not just time served in jail or prison. One of the first torts I learned about in law school was battery followed very quickly by assault. If your law school experience was like mine, then you learned that a civil battery is a “harmful or offensive touching”. A touching could, in theory, be any sort of contact the defendant makes with the plaintiff’s person or something connected to the plaintiff (e.g. something the plaintiff is holding in his hand). A typical defense to a battery cause of action might be the Crowded World Doctrine, for example. The Crowded World Doctrine basically says that the world is full of people so some amount of physical contact — imagine riding a crowded subway train — with other people is an inevitable part of daily life. This definition, however, is theoretical and terribly useful in the real world if you have actually been involved in a civil battery. A more useful definition would be one that, for instance, lists out the various criteria for civil battery. If you fulfill the listed criteria, then you as a plaintiff have made a case for civil battery. Whether you prevail, of course, depends on what defenses the defendant can raise and prove. In California, the elements of a cause of action for civil battery are as...