California’s False Imprisonment Laws – What You Need to Know

California law makes it illegal to restrain, detain or confine someone without their consent. Doing so is the crime of “false imprisonment.”

Neither force nor violence is necessary for an act to be considered false imprisonment. A person can be found guilty of false imprisonment for something as simple as a snap reaction in the heat of the moment. For example, if in a heated argument, a husband grabs his spouse by the arm and prevents them from leaving the room.

Depending on the facts of the case and the criminal history of the defendant, false imprisonment can be charged in combination with other crimes and is punishable by up to three years in county jail.

If you or someone you know has been accused of false imprisonment, it’s important to speak with a skilled Los Angeles criminal defense attorney as soon as possible.

What is false imprisonment under California law?

Under California Penal Code §236, false imprisonment is defined as “the unlawful violation of the personal liberty of another.”

In everyday language, this means intentionally causing someone to stay somewhere against their will, without any legal right to do so. A key point is that false imprisonment doesn’t necessarily involve physical force or violence. Simply preventing someone from freely moving or leaving – even for a short time – can be enough to meet this definition, as long as the person did not consent.

To better understand the law, it helps to break down the elements of false imprisonment that a prosecutor must prove for a conviction in a California court:

  1. Intentional restraint – The defendant intentionally detained, confined, or restrained another person. It’s not an “accident” or misunderstanding. There must be a deliberate act.
  2. Against the person’s will – The actions of the defendant forced the victim to stay or go somewhere against their will. Even a brief or minor restraint counts, but the key is that the victim wanted to leave and was prevented from doing so.
  3. Lack of consent – The person who was restrained did not consent to the restriction on their freedom. If someone freely agrees to remain somewhere or go with you, then it isn’t false imprisonment.
  4. No legal justification – The act of restraining was unlawful, meaning the defendant had no legal authority or valid justification to hold the person under the circumstances.

These elements show that false imprisonment is a broad offense – it can encompass many situations where someone’s freedom of movement is curtailed.

However, California law also recognizes certain situations where holding or restraining another person is lawful or justified. We cover those legal exceptions in a section below.

It’s also worth noting that false imprisonment is related to, but distinct from, kidnapping.

Kidnapping generally involves moving a person a substantial distance using force or fear, whereas false imprisonment usually involves keeping someone in place without moving them. In other words, you don’t have to take someone away or transport them to be guilty of false imprisonment – simply preventing them from leaving is enough.

Misdemeanor vs. felony false imprisonment

False imprisonment can be charged at two different levels in California, depending on how it was committed. A basic false imprisonment (with no aggravating factors) is typically a misdemeanor, while a case involving certain aggravating methods can be a felony.

We will discuss the difference in detail in the Penalties section, but in short: if you use force, violence, threats, or deceit to restrain someone, prosecutors have the option to charge it as a felony. If no such aggravating factors are present, it will usually be a misdemeanor.

Regardless of how it’s charged, the core definition – unlawfully restraining someone against their will – remains the same.

Common examples of false imprisonment charges in California

False imprisonment scenarios can arise in a variety of everyday situations. Here are some common examples of conduct that has led to false imprisonment charges in California:

Domestic disputes turned physical

One of the most common contexts is a heated argument between spouses or partners.

For instance, if during a fight one person grabs the other’s arm or blocks a doorway to stop them from leaving, that momentary restraint can be charged as false imprisonment. Even if it lasts only a few seconds, it’s considered a violation of the person’s liberty. This often happens alongside domestic violence allegations – the classic example is holding a partner in a room or grabbing them to keep them from storming out during an argument. Such conduct might start as a snap reaction, but it can result in criminal charges.

Locking someone in a room or vehicle

Physically locking another person in a confined space against their will is a clear-cut false imprisonment scenario. For example, locking a coworker in an office as a prank or refusing to unlock a car to let a passenger out can lead to charges.

In one case, a person who turned on the child safety locks during an argument, trapping their passenger in the car, faced false imprisonment charges. Any time someone is prevented from exiting a space when they want to, it raises a red flag.

Physical restraint during a fight

Outside of domestic relationships, false imprisonment can occur in bar fights, street altercations or other disputes.

If one person pins another person against a wall, holds someone down on the ground, or ties someone up, even briefly, that could be charged as false imprisonment (in addition to possible assault or battery charges). Holding someone by force to prevent them from leaving a confrontation is illegal, even if the intent was just to make them “stay and listen” or calm them down.

Unlawful detention by store owners or security

Shopkeepers and security personnel sometimes detain people they suspect of theft or wrongdoing. While there is a legal privilege for detaining shoplifting suspects (discussed below), it has limits. If a store owner or security guard detains someone without reasonable cause or for an excessive time against their will, it can turn into false imprisonment.

For example, a security guard handcuffing someone and keeping them locked in a back room for hours without calling the police could be facing false imprisonment allegations if the detention is found unreasonable or unjustified.

Holding someone for money or revenge (without movement)

Even if a person isn’t transported anywhere (which would be kidnapping), keeping someone captive to coerce them into something can be false imprisonment.

For instance, if someone guards a doorway and refuses to let a guest leave until they pay a debt, or holds someone in a house as “payback” for a perceived wrong, that confinement is unlawful. In more extreme cases involving ransom or using a person as a shield, other charges like kidnapping or hostage-taking would likely apply, but prosecutors could include false imprisonment as well.

Police or authority figures exceeding their powers

While law enforcement officers have broad authority to detain individuals, false arrest or unlawful detention by a police officer can also be charged as false imprisonment in rare situations. An example might be an off-duty security officer or citizen’s arrest gone wrong – if someone without proper authority detains a person by force or threat, claiming to enforce the law, they could be charged with false imprisonment.

(Lawful arrests by police, of course, are exempt as long as proper procedures are followed.)

These examples illustrate that false imprisonment isn’t limited to dramatic hostage situations – it often emerges from everyday conflicts, misunderstandings, or lapses in judgment. Many people are surprised to find out that a relatively brief or minor incident (like shutting someone in a room during an argument) can result in criminal charges.

In Los Angeles and throughout California, authorities will examine any incident where a person’s freedom of movement was restricted without consent. If the circumstances fit the law’s definition, charges may be filed even if the incident seemed minor at the time.

California law acknowledges that there are times when one person may lawfully detain or restrain another without it being a crime. These exceptions hinge on the idea that either legal authority or necessity justifies the restraint.

Some common legal exceptions and justifications include:

Lawful authority (law enforcement and peace officers)

Police officers, sheriff’s deputies, and other law enforcement officials have legal authority to detain or restrain individuals as part of their duties. If an officer handcuffs someone during a lawful arrest or holds a suspect down in the course of their job, that is not false imprisonment as long as the officer is acting within the scope of their authority and using reasonable force.

Similarly, court security or hospital staff may have authority to briefly detain someone under specific legal provisions. The key is that the actions must be reasonable and legally sanctioned – an officer who abuses their power and detains someone without cause could step outside this exception.

Citizen’s arrest and shopkeeper’s privilege

Private individuals can, in very limited circumstances, legally detain someone. One scenario is a lawful citizen’s arrest – California law allows a private person to arrest someone if a felony has been committed, or if a misdemeanor breach of peace is committed in their presence.

In doing so, they can detain the suspect until authorities arrive. Another important example is the shopkeeper’s privilege: store owners or their employees are permitted to detain a person they have probable cause to suspect of shoplifting or theft, for a reasonable time and in a reasonable manner, for the purpose of investigating or calling the police. If done properly, this is an exception to false imprisonment. However, the detention must be based on reasonable suspicion and cannot last longer than necessary – otherwise the protector of the store could lose the privilege and face charges.

Self-defense or defense of others

California’s self-defense laws allow you to temporarily restrain or detain someone if it’s reasonably necessary to protect yourself or someone else from imminent harm. For example, if a person is attacking people in a crowd, bystanders are within their rights to tackle and hold that person down to prevent further injury until help arrives.

Restraining someone under these circumstances is not criminal, provided you use only as much force as is reasonably necessary for safety. The intention here is not to unlawfully imprison, but to prevent greater harm. Once the threat subsides or authorities take over, any continued detention could become unlawful.

Parental authority and caregiving

Parents and legal guardians have a certain degree of authority to control the movement of their minor children. Typical parental actions like sending a child to their room, using a “timeout,” or reasonably restricting a child’s whereabouts for discipline are not false imprisonment.

The law assumes parents are acting in the child’s best interest, within reason. Similarly, caregivers for dependent adults (such as guardians for elderly or mentally impaired individuals) might need to restrain someone for safety – for instance, stopping a confused elderly family member from wandering into danger. As long as these actions do not involve abuse or unnecessary harm, they are generally lawful and exempt from criminal false imprisonment charges.

It may seem obvious, but if the person voluntarily consented to the restraint or confinement, then it’s not false imprisonment because one of the key elements (against their will) is missing. For instance, consider an escape room attraction where participants agree to be locked in a room for fun, or a medical patient who agrees to stay in a hospital room for treatment.

Consent can be a complete defense – however, it must be freely given and can be withdrawn. If someone initially agrees to stay but later clearly revokes consent and is then held against their will, the situation can turn into false imprisonment from that point forward.

It’s crucial to understand these exceptions because they often form the basis of defenses in false imprisonment cases. A large part of fighting such charges is showing that the circumstances fell under a lawful exception or that the defendant had a justified reason to detain the person.

For example, a security guard might defend against a charge by demonstrating that they honestly and reasonably believed the person was shoplifting (thus invoking shopkeeper’s privilege), or a citizen might argue they were detaining a violent attacker until police arrived (self-defense of others). An experienced attorney will look at the facts and see if any of these legal justifications apply, which could lead to charges being reduced or dropped.

Penalties for false imprisonment (misdemeanor vs. felony)

False imprisonment is classified as a “wobbler” in California, meaning it can be prosecuted as either a misdemeanor or a felony.

The distinction largely depends on whether force, violence, fraud, or menace was used in the act. Here’s how the penalties break down:

Misdemeanor false imprisonment

If no aggravating force or threats were used, false imprisonment is usually charged as a misdemeanor. A conviction can lead to up to 1 year in county jail and a fine of up to $1,000. In many cases, especially for first-time offenders, judges and prosecutors may be open to alternative sentencing on misdemeanor convictions.

This could include probation (supervised or informal), community service, counseling programs (for example, anger management or domestic violence classes if the incident arose from a domestic dispute), and other jail alternatives. Often, someone convicted of a first-offense misdemeanor false imprisonment might receive a sentence of probation with some days in county jail or no jail at all, provided they comply with conditions set by the court.

Felony false imprisonment

If the case involves “violence, menace, fraud, or deceit” – for example, physically restraining someone with excessive force, threatening to harm them if they try to leave, or tricking them into staying somewhere – prosecutors can charge false imprisonment as a felony.

The penalties for felony false imprisonment are more severe. A conviction carries a potential sentence of 16 months, 2 years, or 3 years of incarceration.

Notably, due to California’s realignment laws, this term is often served in county jail rather than state prison (since false imprisonment is not categorized as a “violent felony” by itself). Additionally, a felony conviction can bring a fine of up to $10,000.

Besides the formal jail or prison term, a person convicted of felony false imprisonment may face formal probation (which involves regular check-ins with a probation officer and strict conditions) if the court deems it appropriate. Sometimes jail time can be lessened or avoided through probation deals, but that depends on the case details and the judge’s discretion.

Additional consequences

In both misdemeanor and felony cases, the court might impose other penalties such as restitution (paying the victim for any losses), mandatory restraining orders (especially common in domestic-related cases, to keep the defendant away from the victim), and required counseling. Also, a criminal record for false imprisonment can impact employment, professional licenses, and immigration status (since it’s a crime involving personal liberty, it may be taken seriously by immigration authorities).

Enhancements and special situations

While the basic false imprisonment charge carries the penalties described above, certain situations can lead to even greater punishment. For instance, if the false imprisonment was part of a domestic violence incident, there may be additional enhancements or requirements (like a 52-week domestic batterer program mandated as part of probation). If a firearm or other weapon was used to menace the victim, other charges or enhancements (such as firearm enhancements) could add time.

In rare and extreme cases (for example, false imprisonment of a hostage or for use as a human shield, covered under a separate Penal Code section), California law provides for significantly higher penalties. Those scenarios are less common, but it’s important to be aware that they exist. Generally, for a standard false imprisonment case without those extreme factors, the maximum exposure is three years, and it is up to the prosecution to decide whether to file it as a misdemeanor or seek a felony based on how the act was carried out.

Jail alternatives and diversion

Los Angeles County, in line with California trends, increasingly considers alternatives to incarceration for lower-level offenses.

For misdemeanor false imprisonment, especially if the incident was minor and the defendant has no prior record, it might be possible to negotiate a diversion program or deferred entry of judgment. California law now allows judges discretion to grant misdemeanor judicial diversion in certain cases (excluding specific offenses) – which could result in charges being dismissed after the defendant completes counseling, community service, or other conditions.

False imprisonment is not explicitly excluded from diversion, so in a case without violence (for example, a trivial incident blown out of proportion), a good attorney could argue for giving the accused a chance to avoid a conviction through diversion.

Even without formal diversion, creative sentencing can include things like house arrest/electronic monitoring, work release programs (where the defendant can maintain a job and spend non-work hours in custody), or intensive probation supervision in lieu of jail time. The availability of these options will depend on the specifics of the case and the policies of the local court and District Attorney, but they are all avenues a defense lawyer will explore to keep a client out of jail or prison whenever possible.

In Los Angeles County, false imprisonment cases are prosecuted with an eye on the specific circumstances of each incident. As the nation’s largest county, Los Angeles sees a wide range of false imprisonment scenarios – from minor domestic dust-ups to serious felony-level offenses.

Here are some notable trends and patterns in how Los Angeles authorities handle these charges:

Domestic violence situations

A significant number of false imprisonment charges in L.A. arise from domestic disputes or relationship conflicts. Prosecutors here (as in many California counties) often add a false imprisonment charge to domestic violence cases when the facts support it.

For example, if an incident of spousal argument also included one person blocking the other’s exit or holding them down, the District Attorney may charge domestic battery and false imprisonment. This is sometimes used as a strategy to increase leverage in the case – the additional charge can put more pressure on the defendant, potentially leading to plea negotiations.

Los Angeles prosecutors know that false imprisonment can be challenging to prove beyond a reasonable doubt (since it may come down to one person’s word against another’s about what happened in a brief moment), but by charging it, they create an extra point of negotiation.

Bottom line: In LA County, if your case involves an allegation that you restrained someone during a domestic incident, expect prosecutors to pursue the false imprisonment charge assertively, even alongside other charges.

Misdemeanor or felony?

Los Angeles County is generally more willing to file felony charges for false imprisonment if there is any credible evidence of violence or threat.

Under the current policies, the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office emphasizes diversion and rehabilitation for non-violent offenses, but they still treat any form of violence or intimidation in false imprisonment cases as a serious matter. That means if you allegedly so much as raised a fist or made a threat while restricting someone’s movement, the DA may opt for a felony charge.

Conversely, in cases where the incident was on the milder end (say, briefly blocking a doorway without any threats), prosecutors might use their discretion to file a misdemeanor, especially if the defendant has no prior record. We often see misdemeanor false imprisonment charges in scenarios like first-time domestic disputes or scuffles where no one was hurt and no weapon was involved.

However, it’s not a guarantee – different deputy district attorneys might see the same facts differently. It helps greatly to have a local defense attorney who knows the tendencies of the DA’s office and can often engage early on to argue for a misdemeanor filing or even convince them not to file the charge at all in borderline cases.

Another pattern in Los Angeles is the use of related or alternative charges in false imprisonment cases. For instance, if there’s an accusation that someone was held against their will and moved a short distance, prosecutors might charge kidnapping initially (which carries harsher penalties including potential “strike” status under California’s Three Strikes Law) and then later offer to reduce it to false imprisonment as part of a plea bargain.

This tactic of “overcharging” is a common practice: the idea is to charge the most serious possible offenses and then have room to negotiate. Similarly, in a relatively minor case, a prosecutor might charge false imprisonment but be open to letting the defendant plead to a lesser offense like simple battery or disturbing the peace, especially if the evidence for the restraint element is shaky. Los Angeles County courts are very busy, and there is an incentive on both sides to resolve cases without a trial when appropriate.

An experienced Los Angeles defense lawyer can leverage this by highlighting weaknesses in the prosecution’s case and the risks of going to trial, thereby securing a better deal or a reduction of the charge.

Focus on rehabilitation for first-time offenders

In recent years, Los Angeles County’s approach under its prosecutorial leadership has shown a greater focus on rehabilitation and avoiding unnecessarily harsh outcomes for defendants who aren’t hardened criminals.

If you are a first-time offender accused of false imprisonment (especially misdemeanor), the chances are higher than ever that you could receive a resolution involving counseling, classes, or diversion programs rather than significant jail time. This is in line with broader California criminal justice reforms. However, this leniency has limits – cases that involve clear victim injury, domestic abuse, or the use of weapons will still be prosecuted vigorously. The public and the courts expect the DA’s office to protect victims, so those cases are not likely to get a slap on the wrist.

Los Angeles also has specialized prosecution units (for example, teams that handle family violence) who are well-versed in these kinds of charges and often coordinate with victim advocates. They will take into account the victim’s perspective when deciding how to proceed.

Geographical consistency and variations

Los Angeles County is large, and it includes multiple branch courthouses (Downtown (Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center), Van Nuys, Airport court, Compton, Pasadena, etc.).

Generally, the policies are consistent county-wide, but there can be slight differences in how cases are handled in practice from one courthouse to another. For example, some city attorneys (who prosecute misdemeanors in certain cities within LA County) might be more inclined to dispose of a minor false imprisonment case with an office hearing or voluntary anger management class instead of criminal charges. By contrast, the main DA’s office might be stricter.

Knowing these nuances can be valuable. Our firm has handled false imprisonment cases all over Los Angeles County, and we understand the local court culture – this knowledge helps in tailoring our defense approach depending on where your case is being prosecuted.

Overall, the Los Angeles prosecution trend is to carefully scrutinize false imprisonment allegations but also to use discretion in how they charge. They will look at factors such as: Was this part of a more violent incident? Is the defendant someone with a history of similar behavior? How credible is the evidence of restraint (are there eyewitnesses, injuries, 911 calls)? And importantly, what does the alleged victim say about their experience?

In LA, victim input can influence charging – a victim who felt terrorized will likely lead to tougher charges, whereas if the “victim” has recanted or minimizes the event, a prosecutor might be more open to a lesser approach. Having a defense attorney who can interact with the DA, present your side of the story, and even work with any alleged victim (through proper legal channels) can significantly impact how the case is charged and resolved in Los Angeles County.

Facing a false imprisonment charge can be intimidating, but remember that the prosecution has the burden to prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

In many cases, a strong defense can lead to reduced charges or an acquittal. Here are some common defenses and legal strategies used in California false imprisonment cases:

One of the simplest defenses is showing that the supposed victim actually consented or did not object to the confinement. If evidence shows the person willingly went along with the situation or never expressed that they wanted to leave, it undermines the claim that they were held against their will.

For instance, if you are accused of locking a friend in your house but text messages or video show the friend was joking around and didn’t actually try to leave, that can be a strong defense. The law requires that the act be against the person’s will – so any indication of agreement or permission can negate a false imprisonment charge.

No intent to restrain (accident or misunderstanding)

The prosecution must prove you intentionally restrained someone. If the incident was an accident or a misinterpretation, this defense can come into play. Perhaps you closed a door not realizing someone was on the other side, or you blocked someone’s way unintentionally during a chaotic situation.

Maybe you grabbed a person’s arm reflexively, not to confine them but out of concern or another reason. If your attorney can show that any restraint was not deliberate or that you had no motive to confine the person, then the false imprisonment charge may not hold. Sometimes what a victim perceives as intentional confinement was actually a byproduct of something else happening – clearing up such misunderstandings (through witness testimony, for example) can be very effective.

False accusation or exaggeration

Unfortunately, false imprisonment allegations can arise from ulterior motives or exaggerated accounts. This is especially true in heated interpersonal conflicts or messy breakups. A person might falsely accuse someone of holding them against their will out of anger, jealousy, or to gain an upper hand in a related legal matter (like a divorce or custody battle). Alternatively, an incident might have happened but is blown out of proportion – e.g., the “victim” was momentarily blocked at the doorway but claims they were held captive for an hour.

A defense strategy here is to challenge the credibility of the accusation. This can involve pointing out inconsistencies in the accuser’s story, showing evidence that contradicts their claims (such as surveillance footage, messages sent during the time in question, or testimony from others who were present), and highlighting any motives to lie. If reasonable doubt can be cast on the truthfulness or accuracy of the allegation, the jury (or prosecutor, when considering a dismissal) may conclude the charge is unfounded.

Self-defense or defense of others

As discussed in the exceptions, if you restrained someone for safety reasons, it can serve as a valid defense. The key is demonstrating that any confinement was necessary and reasonable under the circumstances. For example, imagine you are charged because you tackled and held a stranger on the street – it sounds bad until you explain that the stranger was swinging a bottle at passersby and you held him only long enough for everyone to get away.

In court, your attorney would argue you were legally justified in detaining the individual to prevent imminent harm. Similarly, if two people got into a scuffle and you pinned the other person down solely because they were attacking you, that could be lawful self-defense rather than false imprisonment. This defense often comes down to context and proportionality: were you genuinely trying to prevent harm, and did you stop restraining the person once the danger passed? If yes, the law is on your side.

This defense applies if you had some legal right or duty that permitted you to restrain the person. It overlaps with the exceptions we covered. For instance, if you’re a security guard charged with false imprisonment for detaining a shopper, proof that you followed the proper protocol (reasonable suspicion of theft, etc.) can justify your actions.

If you’re a caregiver accused of false imprisonment for locking a door to keep a dementia patient from wandering, you would argue it was a necessary measure for their safety, aligned with your caregiving duties. Essentially, your lawyer would present evidence that your conduct was lawful under the circumstances – which means no crime occurred at all. This might involve bringing in policy manuals, expert testimony on proper procedures, or witnesses who attest that what you did was standard practice.

Insufficient evidence of restraint

Sometimes the best strategy is not a specific affirmative defense, but simply making the prosecution prove its case and poking holes in their evidence. False imprisonment cases can be surprisingly subjective – how do we prove someone was “restrained” and not free to leave? If there’s no solid evidence (like no video, no injuries, and perhaps conflicting stories), the prosecution might rely on the victim’s testimony alone. A skilled defense attorney will cross-examine the accuser to highlight uncertainties or contradictions: How exactly were you restrained?

Did you actually try to leave or verbally protest? How long did this last? Any hesitation or vagueness can create doubt. Additionally, if there were no injuries or physical marks, the defense can argue that supports the idea that no significant restraint occurred (or at least no force, which might reduce a felony to a misdemeanor). In essence, the defense can argue that the state simply cannot prove every element – maybe they can’t prove the defendant’s intent, or they can’t prove the victim was truly confined as opposed to just argued with.

Remember, the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt, and if the evidence is thin, that can be emphasized to seek an acquittal or dismissal.

Negotiation and reduction strategies

Apart from formal defenses, a crucial part of a legal strategy involves skillful negotiation with prosecutors. An experienced Los Angeles defense lawyer will not only prepare to defend you at trial, but also look for opportunities to get the charges dropped or reduced beforehand. For instance, if there’s a risk of a felony conviction, the defense might negotiate for a misdemeanor plea to avoid the worst consequences. If the case is relatively minor, your attorney might persuade the prosecutor to allow you into a diversion program or to plead to a lesser charge that carries no jail time.

Part of this strategy is showing the human side of the client – presenting evidence of your good character, lack of criminal history, steady employment, or family responsibilities. We often provide prosecutors with letters of recommendation, proof of enrollment in counseling or anger management (voluntarily, even before it’s ordered), or other mitigating information. The goal is to demonstrate that you are not a threat to public safety and that the incident won’t repeat, thereby encouraging a more lenient resolution.

Every case is unique, and the defenses applicable will depend on the facts.

At Helfend Law Group, we take a comprehensive approach to false imprisonment charges. We start by listening to your side of the story in detail, then we thoroughly investigate – that could mean reviewing text messages, phone logs, security camera footage, or interviewing witnesses who might support your account. We examine how the police and prosecution have handled the case: Did the officers obtain statements lawfully? Are there inconsistencies in the reports? We will file appropriate pre-trial motions (for example, to exclude evidence that was illegally obtained or to dismiss the case if the charges are not supported by probable cause). Our team’s deep knowledge of California law and the Los Angeles court system helps us to pinpoint the best defense strategy, whether it’s fighting outright for a not guilty verdict or negotiating a solution that protects your record and your freedom.

Throughout the process, our focus is on defending your rights and your future. A false imprisonment charge can carry serious penalties and stigma, but you do not have to face it alone. With a strong legal strategy and an advocate in your corner, you can significantly improve your chances of a favorable outcome – whether that’s a case dismissal, a not guilty verdict, or a minimal consequence resolution. We are committed to achieving the best possible result for you so that you can move on with your life.

Contact the Helfend Law Group for help

Robert M. Helfend has been successfully defending clients in Los Angeles County since 1984. He understands the nuances of false imprisonment cases and how to fight them.

If you’re charged with false imprisonment under California Penal Code 236–237, let us put our experience to work for you.

Call today at 800-834-6434 for a free consultation.

Published June 12, 2021. Updated June 19, 2025.

References

  1. California Penal Code § 236: “False imprisonment is the unlawful violation of the personal liberty of another.” https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=236.&lawCode=PEN
  2. 25 CFR 11.404. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/25/11.404
  3. 10 U.S. Code § 897, Art. 97. https://www.law.cornell.edu/topn/unlawful_detention