False Imprisonment in Pennsylvania

What Is False Imprisonment?

Background

“False imprisonment requires that one knowingly restrain [ ] another unlawfully so as to interfere substantially with his liberty.” (See Com. v. Wells (1983) 313 Pa. Super. 557, 561.)

“In determining whether the restraint at issue ‘substantially’ interfered with a person's liberty, we give the word its plain meaning and have interpreted it to cover restraint where an individual's liberty is interfered with in an ample or considerable manner.” (See Commonwealth v. Belotte, 885 EDA 2022, at *7 (Pa. Super. Ct. Mar. 1, 2023).)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2903, entitled false imprisonment, provides that "[a] person commits an offense if he knowingly restrains another unlawfully so as to interfere substantially with h[er] liberty." (See In re Matter of M.G (2007) 916 A.2d 1179, 1181-82.)

“In determining the magnitude of restraint necessary for false imprisonment, this Court has recognized that false imprisonment covers restraints which are less serious than those necessary for the offenses of kidnapping and unlawful restraint.” (See id; Commonwealth v. Prince (1998) 719 A.2d 1086.)

“Thus, we determine the Legislature intended false imprisonment to cover restraints where an individual's liberty is interfered with in an ample or considerable manner.” (See In re Matter of M.G (2007) 916 A.2d 1179, 1181-82.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“The scope of this Court's review of a grant or denial of summary judgment is limited to determining whether the trial court committed an error of law or an abuse of discretion.” (See Kaplan v. Se. Pa. Transp. Auth. (1997) 688 A.2d 736, 738 n. 2; Quinones v. Commonwealth (2012) 45 A.3d 467, 469 n.1.)

“Summary judgment is appropriate only when, after examining the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (See Guy M. Cooper, Inc. v. E. Penn Sch. Dist. (2006) 903 A.2d 608, 613; Quinones v. Commonwealth (2012) 45 A.3d 467, 469 n.1.)

“The appellate standard of review is de novo when a reviewing court considers questions of law.” (See Weaver v. Lancaster Newspapers, Inc. (2007) 592 Pa. 458, 926 A.2d 899; Quinones v. Commonwealth (2012) 45 A.3d 467, 469 n.1.)

“In reviewing questions of law, the scope of review is plenary, as the reviewing court may examine the entire contents of the record.” (See id.)

The Court’s Decisions

It is well settled that “false imprisonment is a lesser included offense of unlawful restraint. In other words, once the crime of unlawful restraint has been proved, no additional facts are necessary to prove false imprisonment. Thus, the two offenses merged.” (See Com. v. Belgrave (1978) 258 Pa. Super. 40, 49.)

It is also well settled that the “gist of the offense is the actual and unlawful restraint or detention of one person against his will by another, by actual force or reasonably apprehended force, though actual force is not necessary.” (See Commonwealth v. Brewer (1933) 109 Pa. Super. 429, 437.)

Documents for False Imprisonment in Pennsylvania

Sort By

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Hudson document preview

Complaint

24 pages

CIVIL COVER SHEET AND ENTRY OF APPEARANCE Delaware County Court of Common Ple Court Term & No 1 Case Caption Wells Fargo Bank N A Vs David Hudson et aI Jury X Non Ju…