Instructions
M Civ JI 116.01 False Arrest—Definition
M Civ JI 116.02 False Imprisonment—Definition
M Civ JI 116.05 False Arrest—Law Enforcement Officer—Probable Cause to Arrest For Felony Without Warrant
M Civ JI 116.06 False Arrest—Defense—Right of Private Citizen to Arrest
M Civ JI 116.07 False Arrest—Arrest With Warrant
M Civ JI 116.20 False Arrest—Burden of Proof
M Civ JI 116.21 False Imprisonment—Burden of Proof
False arrest is an unlawful taking, seizing or detaining of a person, either by touching or putting hands on him or her, or by any other act that indicates an intention to take him or her into custody and subjects the person arrested to the actual control and will of the person making the arrest.
The act must have been performed with the intent to make an arrest and must have been so understood by the person arrested.
Comment
See Bonkowski v Arlan’s Department Store, 383 Mich 90; 174 NW2d 765 (1970); Bruce v Meijers Supermarkets, Inc, 34 Mich App 352; 191 NW2d 132 (1971); Hill v Taylor, 50 Mich 549; 15 NW 899 (1883).
History
False imprisonment is the unlawful restraint of an individual’s personal liberty or freedom of movement. To constitute a false imprisonment, there must be an intentional and unlawful restraint, detention or confinement that deprives a person of his or her personal liberty or freedom of movement against his or her will. The restraint necessary to create liability for false imprisonment may be imposed either by actual physical force or by an express or implied threat of force.
*(It is not necessary for the detention or confinement to be in a jail or prison.)
Note on Use
*The sentence in parentheses should be used when applicable.
Comment
See Stowers v Wolodzko, 386 Mich 119; 191 NW2d 355 (1971); Tumbarella v Kroger Co, 85 Mich App 482; 271 NW2d 284 (1978); Hess v Wolverine Lake, 32 Mich App 601; 189 NW2d 42 (1971).
History
An arrest is lawful if the defendant had probable cause to make the arrest. An arrest is unlawful if the defendant did not have probable cause.
There was probable cause if you find that—
- the defendant was aware of information, facts or circumstances which were sufficient to lead a reasonable and prudent person to believe that the crime of [Specify felony.] [had been committed / was in the process of being committed] and that plaintiff was the person who [had committed it / was in the process of committing it], and
- the defendant believed that the crime of [Specify felony.] [had been committed / was in the process of being committed] and that plaintiff was the person who [had committed it / was in the process of committing it].
The elements of the crime of [Specify felony.] are [State elements of the felony.] .
An arrest made with probable cause is lawful even if *(the crime of [Specify felony.] had not actually been committed, nor was it in the process of being committed) *(or) *(the crime of [Specify felony.] had been committed or was in the process of being committed, but plaintiff was not the person who had committed it or was in the process of committing it).
Note on Use
*Include one or more of the phrases in parentheses as applicable.
Comment
See MCL 764.15. See also Hammitt v Straley, 338 Mich 587; 61 NW2d 641 (1953); People v Bressler, 223 Mich 597; 194 NW 559 (1923).
If plaintiff makes a prima facie showing of arrest without a warrant, then defendant has the burden of going forward with evidence that the arrest was lawful. Donovan v Guy, 347 Mich 457; 80 NW2d 190 (1956); MRE 301.
If defendant is a private security guard, see MCL 338.1080.
History
M Civ JI 116.05 was added September 1982.
An arrest is lawful if it is made by a private citizen in any one of the following circumstances:
- for a felony committed in [his / her] presence
- when the person to be arrested had committed a felony although not in the presence of the citizen
- *(when [he / she] is summoned by a peace officer to assist said officer in making an arrest)
†(The elements of the crime of [Specify felony.] are [State elements of the felony.].)
Note on Use
*Delete subparagraph c if not an issue.
†If defendant relies wholly on subparagraph c, the last paragraph of this instruction should not be given.
If defendant is a private security guard, see MCL 338.1080.
Comment
Subsections a through c of this instruction state substantially, in the language of the statute, three of four circumstances in which a private citizen has a right to arrest. MCL 764.16. See also Bright v Littlefield, ___ Mich ___; 641 NW2d 587 (2002); Freeman v Meijer, Inc, 95 Mich App 475; 291 NW2d 87 (1980); Nash v Sears Roebuck & Co, 12 Mich App 553; 163 NW2d 471 (1968); Maliniemi v Gronlund, 92 Mich 222; 52 NW 627 (1892). For rights of a merchant, agent, or employee of a merchant, or independent contractor providing security for a merchant, to make an arrest, see MCL 764.16(d).
History
An arrest is lawful if defendant made such arrest pursuant to a warrant naming [name of plaintiff], and did not act in bad faith.
Comment
An arrest made pursuant to a warrant which is valid on its face is a lawful arrest. See Gooch v Wachowiak, 352 Mich 347; 89 NW2d 496 (1958); Tryon v Pingree, 112 Mich 338, 345; 70 NW 905, 907 (1897); Barker v Anderson, 81 Mich 508; 45 NW 1108 (1890).
History
Plaintiff has the burden of proof on each of the following:
- that [he / she] was arrested by defendant
- that [he / she] was aware of the arrest and it was against [his / her] will
- that defendant intended to arrest the plaintiff
- that such arrest was unlawful
If you find that plaintiff has proved each of the elements that I have explained to you, and the defendant has failed to prove the defense of [Describe defense.], your verdict will be for the plaintiff.
If you find that the plaintiff has failed to prove any one of the elements, or if you find that the defendant has proved the defense of [Describe defense.], your verdict will be for the defendant.
History
Plaintiff has the burden of proof on each of the following:
- that [he / she] was imprisoned; that is, [he / she] was restrained, detained or confined by defendant and thereby deprived of [his / her] personal liberty or freedom of movement
- that such imprisonment was against [his / her] will
- that defendant accomplished the imprisonment by actual physical force or by an express or implied threat of force
- that defendant intended to deprive plaintiff of [his / her] personal liberty or freedom of movement
- that such imprisonment was unlawful
If you find that plaintiff has proved each of the elements that I have explained to you, and the defendant has failed to prove the defense of [Describe defense.], your verdict will be for the plaintiff.
If you find that the plaintiff has failed to prove any one of the elements, or if you find that the defendant has proved the defense of [Describe defense.], your verdict will be for the defendant.
History