Locked in the Manager’s Office

Question:

While shopping in a clothing store, Susan is confronted by a store manager, Mark, who accuses her of stealing a bracelet. Mark tells Susan, “You’re going to have to come to my office and wait until the police get here.” When Susan asks if she can leave, Mark replies, “If you try to leave, I’ll call the police and you’ll be arrested immediately.” Susan, afraid of being arrested, follows Mark to his office and waits inside for 30 minutes, growing increasingly anxious. After that time, Mark returns and informs Susan that the police are not coming, and she is free to go. At no point was Susan physically restrained or locked in the office. Susan now sues the store for false imprisonment. Is Susan likely to succeed in her claim for false imprisonment?

Baseline Response

Issue:

The issue is whether Susan was falsely imprisoned by the store manager, Mark, when she was asked to stay in his office under the threat of police involvement, despite the absence of physical restraint or locked doors.

Rule:

In McCann v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., the court held that false imprisonment occurs when an individual is intentionally confined within boundaries set by another, either through physical restraint or by coercive threats of force or authority. According to the legal principles established in this case, a credible threat—whether explicit or implicit—can suffice to constitute false imprisonment if it confines a person, and the person is either aware of the confinement or harmed by it. Physical barriers are not necessary; threats of legal authority or other forms of duress can also create confinement.

Application:

Similar to McCann v. Wal-Mart, where the McCann family was wrongfully confined without physical force but through the implied threat of police involvement, Susan was confined within Mark’s office by the implied threat that if she attempted to leave, she would be arrested. In both situations, the confinement was not achieved through physical barriers or force but through the use of authority to coerce compliance. Just as the Wal-Mart employee told the McCann family they could not leave, Mark’s statement to Susan that she would be arrested if she tried to leave served to restrict her freedom of movement.

Susan’s fear of arrest parallels the McCann family’s fear of the consequences of police intervention, causing her to comply with Mark’s demand. Susan was aware of her confinement, as she waited in the office for 30 minutes, experiencing anxiety and feeling compelled to stay due to the threat of legal consequences. This awareness of confinement is a critical element, just as in McCann, where the plaintiffs were conscious of their confinement and stayed due to the perceived threat of police involvement.

Counterarguments:

The store could argue that Susan was not physically restrained, and the office door was not locked, implying she could have left at any time. However, as McCann illustrates, physical restraint is not necessary for false imprisonment; implied threats of legal authority, such as calling the police, are sufficient. In McCann, the Wal-Mart employee’s statement alone was enough to create confinement, even though the plaintiffs were free to move within the store. Similarly, Mark’s threat of arrest effectively confined Susan, as her fear of arrest restricted her ability to leave the office.

Conclusion:

Like the plaintiffs in McCann v. Wal-Mart, Susan was falsely imprisoned through the use of an implied threat of legal authority, even in the absence of physical barriers or restraint. Mark’s statement that Susan would be arrested if she left the office constituted sufficient duress to confine her. Susan was aware of her confinement, and the confinement was achieved through Mark’s coercive use of authority. Therefore, based on the legal principles established in McCann, Susan is likely to succeed in her claim of false imprisonment.