False Imprisionment | Brooklyn Personal Injury Attorney


One should keep in mind that the “civil” tort (a wrongful act) of “FALSE IMPRISONMENT” is much broader than the act involved in a “false arrest” under the criminal law.   While a “false arrest” committed by a police officer will fall under the civil concept of “false imprisonment”, there are any number of other situations, not necessarily involving police or official personnel, that will also be encompassed by “false imprisonment.”

Any time a perpetrator intentionally confines the victim to a specific area, and does it against the victim’s will, that will constitute a “false imprisonment.”

One of the most frequent instances of “false imprisonment” by non-police personnel involves retail establishment security personnel.   Someone thought to have shoplifted an item is detained, only to have store personnel find out a mistake was made.
A landlord, annoyed that a tenant has not paid his rent, locks the tenant in his tenth floor apartment.  This may well constitute “false imprisonment.”   Locking the tenant out of the apartment would not.

The yardstick is determined by the mental state of the victim.  If the perpetrator tells a person they are locked into a room, and the victim has grounds to believe it, even though the room is in fact unlocked, a “false imprisonment” has occurred.   Alternatively, if the victim is asleep when the perpetrator locks the room, and the perpetrator then unlocks the room before the victim awakens, the is no “false imprisonment.”.

As in all cases that are considered potential lawsuits, the issue of the amount of injury sustained by the victim becomes important to consider.


Police Misconduct | School Safety Officers


In 1998 the New York City Police Department assumed direct responsibility for safety in the New York City public school system. While there are some police officers assigned to schools, the overwhelming number of Police Department personnel assigned to the public schools, for the purpose of maintaining a safe environment, are civilian employees of the Police Department known as “School Safety Officers.” School safety officers have the authority to stop and frisk students as well as question, search and even arrest students. Of singular note is that school administrators have no authority at all over the school safety officers in their school !

School safety officers receive 14 weeks of training before they are sent to their school assignment. A NYC police officer goes through a six month training course. Is it any wonder that the actions of many school safety officers often defy reason. It was the persistent and blatant disregard for the appropriate guidelines, leading to unlawful arrests and other abusive activity, that prompted the American Civil Liberties Union, together with the NY Civil Liberties Union, to bring a federal civil action calling for a drastic change in procedures. The ACLU stated that “Despite mounting evidence of systemic misconduct by police personnel in the schools, the NYPD refuses to even acknowledge any problems with its school policing practices.”

School Safety Officers have routinely broken school policing rules, used unwarranted excessive force, and have violated other school safety regulations and procedures.

According to the New York Daily News (January 21, 2010, page 26) the City of New York averaged 500 complaints against school safety personnel between the years 2002 to 2007. In 2008 that number jumped, according to the News, to 1159.School based personnel are subject to virtually the same rules, regulations and laws as would any other police personnel on the street, in dealing with the public. In fact, the population with which school safety personnel are dealing is entitled to extra consideration, not less, because they are, invariably, minors. Any act or behavior on the part of school safety personnel that deviates from acceptable norms and standards is, and should be, the subject not only of disciplinary action within the police department, but the party harmed should seriously consider a civil lawsuit for actions that are truly outrageous and unacceptable.

If contemplating a lawsuit, the injured party should not only seek a competent Personal Injury Attorney, but look specifically for one well versed in the area of police misconduct and abuse, including cases involving excessive force and false arrest.

Federal class-action lawsuit charges school safety officers subjected kids to ‘excessive force’

Read an article from the New York Daily News titled ” Federal class-action lawsuit charges school safety officers subjected kids to ‘excessive force”‘ by CLICKING HERE


Stunning Conclusion by a US Federal District Court Judge | False Arrest | NYC Personal Injury Attorney


One of the most erudite, intellectually gifted and respected judges on the federal bench, long time Eastern District Court Judge Jack Weinstein, stunningly admonished the New York City Police Department for “widespread falsification by arresting officers.”

What was particularly astonishing is that, in deciding against a motion by the New York City attorneys to have a federal case thrown out, on the basis that no evidence was presented to the court that police lying is tolerated by the NYPD, the judge relied not on evidence in the case before him. Rather, the judge stated that his decision that police lying may well be construed as an official policy of the NYPD, rests on “Informal inquiry…” among the judges of the Eastern District and other “…anecdotal evidence of repeated, widespread falsification by arresting officers…” of the NYPD.

The judge noted that while the vast majority of police officers are honest,

and in spite of the fact that training for recruits has improved and disciplinary action, when taken, is tough, there is evidence that an attitude, which condones lying among police officers, is sufficiently widespread to suggest that it amounts to a “custom or policy” by the City of New York. This, in turn, amounts to approval of illegal conduct by the City and the Police Department.

In practical terms, this decision certainly boosts the position of parties in their attempts to substantiate the grounds that must be demonstrated to succeed in Federal Courts, in cases based on violation of the Federal Civil Rights statute, usually relied upon in false arrest cases. For the lawyers representing clients falsely arrested, this decision will reverberate in a manner that should bring greater relief to those unjustly charged. If you have ever been unjustly charged of a crime you should call one of our NYC Personal Injury Attorneys at The Orlow Firm.


Police Frame Woman For Drunk Driving In Florida

False Arrest and Police Misconduct in New York happen way too often and are on the rise. Sometimes the incidents, even when caught on video, can leave room for doubt. However the latest Police Corruption and Misconduct case in Florida show some egregious acts.

Four Hollywood Police Officers are caught on tape framing a woman for drunk driving. After an officer failed to stop before rear ending the woman, they tried to cover it up.

As Reported by Janie Smith of NBC

Throughout the tape, the cops acknowledged what they are doing is illegal, but when you are the law, there is nothing wrong with bending it for a fellow cop, one says. “I don’t lie and make things up ever because it’s wrong, but if I need to bend it a little bit to protect a cop, I’ll do it,” Pressley tells Francisco after reassuring him no one will ever find out. “She’s freaking hammered anyway.”

Now, not only are the police under intense scrutiny, every single DUI arrest by the officers is under scrutiny.



Arizona v. Gant – U.S. Supreme Court

Arrest After the Search of a Vehicle
False Arrest and Probable Cause

Arizona  v.  Gant
U.S. Supreme Court–April 21, 2009

On April 21, 2009. the United States Supreme Court changed the rules which determine if there was “probable cause” sufficient to create a legal, as opposed to a “false”, arrest.

For all those drivers, or other vehicle occupants,  that are stopped in  vehicles for a traffic infraction, the rule for the past 28 years has allowed a police officer to search the car involved.   If the officer found evidence of a totally unrelated crime, such as an illegal drug or unlicensed weapon, then an arrest based on that evidence in the car would be legal.

That rule has now been tightened with Arizona vs Gant.

Under the new rules in Arizona vs Gant, a vehicle search will only be permitted under two conditions: if the person being arrested can reach into the car to grab a weapon or tamper with evidence the police offer reasonably believes to be in the car or, the police officer believes there is evidence in the car that is directly relevant to the crime for which the occupant was arrested .  Just arresting an occupant of a vehicle, by itself, is no longer grounds to permit a police search of a vehicle.

If, for example, a marijuana cigarette is found when the police search a vehicle after having stopped the vehicle because of an illegal turn, an arrest  based on that marijuana cigarette would no longer be deemed to be based on “probable cause” and the arrest based on the marijuana cigarette would not be legal.

It is, of course,more important than ever to discuss possibilities of  a “false arrest” with competent legal counsel.


When is an Arrest "FALSE"?

When is an Arrest “FALSE”?

The most common mistake made by clients  who have been arrested when they have, in fact, done nothing wrong, is to assume that if the case is dismissed by a judge at some point, then that is enough to give them grounds for a “false arrest” lawsuit.   This, unfortunately, is not necessarily true.

The reason is quite simple:  The evidence legally required to make a police officer’s  arrest “legal”, and therefore not “false”,   is less than the evidence necessary to convict a person of a crime in court.

The legal standard to judge the legality of an arrest is whether the officer had “probable cause” to believe a crime was committed.   The legal standard to generate a conviction is whether, taking all the evidence presented, there is a conclusion “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the person arrested committed the crime.   “Reasonable Doubt” requires a much higher level of proof than does “Probable Cause”.   Therefore, while the prosecutor may not be able to meet the higher standard of “Beyond Reasonable Doubt”   in court, the police officer may have met the lower standard of “Probable  Cause” in making the arrest.   If the lower standard was met by the police officer in making the arrest, then there is no “FALSE” arrest.

It is of the utmost importance that you do not try to decide for yourself whether “probable cause” existed in deciding whether there was a “FALSE” arrest. Seek the assistance of a competent attorney well versed in matters involving “Police Misconduct” and discuss the matter fully with that attorney.