False Arrest/Imprisonment:
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

If you are the victim of false arrest or false imprisonment, this page will identify proper and improper behavior to expect from a law enforcement officer, according to the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. FAQs follow:

If you would like to receive a free false arrest case review, fill out this simple form.

Question 1. Nelson was arrested for breach of the peace and taken to the police station. While there, he got into a verbal dispute with Franks, a police officer on duty. When Nelson referred to Franks as a “nazi,” Franks, without warning, struck him three times in rapid succession on his face and head with his fists and a flashlight, breaking Nelson’s nose in the process. Nelson was handcuffed during this entire encounter. A second officer, Connelly, observed the entire episode, but made no move to stop the beating. Nelson sued Connelly, alleging that Connelly had failed to intervene to protect him from Franks’ attack. According to the law, should Connelly be held liable for his failure to take action in this instance?

Question 2. While on patrol, Morris saw a female screaming for help near an alleyway. When he approached her, he noticed her face was red, and that she appeared to have blood on her cheek. When asked what had happened, she told Morris she had been beaten by her boyfriend, Hearns. She also stated the assault had just occurred, and gave Morris a full description of Hearns and a bar where Hearns liked to hang out. Morris went to the bar and saw a man matching Hearns’ description. In response to questioning, Hearns admitted his identity and was immediately arrested, without resistance, for assault. Ultimately, charges were dropped when the girlfriend failed to show up to testify at the preliminary hearing. Hearns then sued Morris for false arrest, claiming that (a) there was no probable cause for his arrest; and (b) the fact that charges were dropped were proof that the arrest should not have been made. According to the law, can Morris be held liable for false arrest?

Q.2 Answer:No, because the information provided by the girlfriend was sufficient to establish probable cause for the arrest of Hearns.A plaintiff's claim of false arrest is based upon the Fourth Amendment's right to be free from unreasonable seizures. More specifically, under the Fourth Amendment, persons have the right not to be arrested without probable cause. Where this right is violated, a lawsuit is possible. However, probable cause to arrest constitutes justification and is a complete defense to an action for false arrest. Here, probable cause existed to arrest Hearns, based upon the victim's statements and Morris' observations of her physical injuries.

Question 3. Which of the following statements regarding a failure to intervene is TRUE?

• a. A law enforcement officer has an affirmative duty to intervene and protect citizens from crimes committed by third parties.
• b. A law enforcement officer must actually participate in an excessive use of force in order to be sued under Bivens.
• c. A law enforcement officer must have a realistic opportunity to stop the harm in order to be held liable under Bivens for failure to intervene.
• d. A law enforcement officer cannot be held liable for failure to intervene where the illegal act is being committed by a superior officer.

Q.3 Answer: C. A law enforcement officer must have a realistic opportunity to stop the harm in order to be held liable under Bivens for failure to intervene. While a law enforcement officer may be held liable for failing to intervene to stop another officer from violating a person’s constitutional rights in his presence, there must be a realistic opportunity to intervene and prevent the harm.

Question 4. During a search of Carson’s home pursuant to a warrant to look for stolen credit cards, Thompson, a police officer, found five small, white rocks that resembled crack cocaine. He seized the items and took them back to the station. A preliminary field test indicated the items were not, in fact, cocaine. Nevertheless, Thompson sent the items for testing at the laboratory. Convinced that Carson was a drug dealer, and that the laboratory would confirm his suspicions about the rocks, Thompson decided to go ahead and obtain an arrest warrant. In the affidavit he submitted to the judge, Thompson stated: “A field test of the rocks in question indicated they each had properties consistent with cocaine. Based on Carson’s possession of a controlled substance, I request an arrest warrant be issued.” There was no other information presented to justify issuing the arrest warrant. Based on this, the judge issued the warrant and Carson was arrested. When the laboratory report confirmed the substance was a vitamin supplement, not cocaine, all charges were dropped and Carson was released. Carson sued Thompson, alleging that he had intentionally lied to the judge to obtain the arrest warrant. According to the law, can Thompson be held liable for his actions?

Q.4 Answer: Yes, because he knowingly and intentionally made a false statement in obtaining the arrest warrant. The Fourth Amendment requires a truthful factual showing in an affidavit used to establish probable cause. Thus, a complaint that an officer knowingly filed a false affidavit to secure an arrest warrant can be the basis for a lawsuit. In order to succeed on such a claim, the plaintiff must show (1) a false statement knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, was included in the affidavit; and (2) the false statement was material, or necessary, to the finding of probable cause. Here, the statement regarding the field test was clearly false. Further, this statement was essential to the finding of probable cause, because there was no other information present to the judge. Thus, Thompson can be held liable.

Question 5. Which of the following statements regarding a false arrest claim is TRUE?

• a. A plaintiff’s claim of false arrest is based upon the Fifth Amendment right to due process of law.
• b. The existence of probable cause is a complete defense to a claim of false arrest.
• c. Where a plaintiff is acquitted of the charge(s) for which he was arrested, a false arrest claim is conclusively proven and the officer is automatically liable.
• d. An officer is entitled to qualified immunity on a false arrest claim only where probable cause for the arrest actually existed.

Q.5 Answer: B. The existence of probable cause is a complete defense to a claim of false arrest. A law enforcement officer is entitled to qualified immunity on a false arrest claim where probable cause existed for the arrest. Probable cause to arrest constitutes justification and is a complete defense to an action for false arrest. Stated differently, in order for a wrongful arrest claim to succeed under either Bivens or Section 1983, a plaintiff must prove the police lacked probable cause for the arrest.

Source: Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (http://www.fletc.gov)

Act Now! It is essential that you inquire about your False Arrest case as soon as possible. Your individual state's law may limit your time to bring a legal claim to protect your rights. Your legal review is free and there is no commitment. Your case will be evaluated immediately, so get started on your claim today!

Click To Talk To Us Online

see also:

Learn More False Arrest and False Imprisonment - Find out if you have a case
Let our false arrest and false imprisonment lawyers help you out

News & Warnings False Arrest and False Imprisonment: Breaking News
false arrest and false imprisonment news and warnings

Research Center FREE False Arrest Lawsuit Info - Resource Center, police brutality
Legal advice on police brutality, false arrest, and false imprisonment