False Imprisonment and Malicious Prosecution Claims

When Unlawful Detention Meets Unfounded Charges

Being unlawfully detained is bad enough. But when that detention turns into formal charges based on shaky or fabricated grounds, the harm multiplies. False imprisonment takes away liberty in the moment. Malicious prosecution stretches that loss into months or years as someone fights a case that never should have existed.

At Horn Wright, LLP, we’ve met clients who endured both. They were stopped without cause, held overnight, and then dragged through courtrooms for months on charges later dismissed. The trauma wasn’t just the confinement; it was the humiliation of standing accused in front of neighbors, employers, even family. These situations create overlapping claims, false imprisonment for the confinement, malicious prosecution for the abuse of the justice system. Together, they tell the full story of what really happened.

How These Two Claims Intersect In New York

New York law treats false imprisonment and malicious prosecution as related but distinct. False imprisonment focuses on the initial confinement, when someone was unlawfully held without proper justification. Malicious prosecution looks at what happened after: when officials pursued criminal charges without probable cause and with malice.

The two often overlap. Imagine a scenario where police arrest someone without reason, detain them, and then press charges just to cover their tracks. The detention itself may be actionable as false imprisonment. But once formal charges are filed and dragged through the courts, the malicious prosecution claim comes into play.

The key difference lies in timing. False imprisonment generally ends once legal process begins, meaning once a judge gets involved. From that point on, the question shifts to whether the prosecution itself was malicious and unfounded. In many cases, victims pursue both claims together to capture the entire span of harm.

Evidence Needed to Prove Malicious Prosecution

Malicious prosecution claims demand more proof than false imprisonment. Courts in New York require four elements:

1. The defendant initiated or continued a criminal proceeding.
2. The proceeding ended in the victim’s favor (dismissal, acquittal, or vacated conviction).
3. There was no probable cause for the prosecution.
4. The prosecution was motivated by malice.

Proving malice often relies on circumstantial evidence. A police officer who fabricates testimony, a prosecutor who ignores exculpatory evidence, or officials who press charges long after they know the case is weak, all of these suggest improper motive.

Evidence comes from multiple sources: arrest records, emails or communications showing bias, testimony from witnesses who contradict official claims, and even internal policy documents obtained through discovery. In New York, CPLR Article 31 gives attorneys the ability to demand those materials, uncovering the gaps and contradictions that reveal malicious intent.

Remedies That Apply to Both Claims

False imprisonment and malicious prosecution both entitle victims to damages, though the scope often differs.

For false imprisonment, damages usually include lost wages, emotional distress, medical expenses, and humiliation. Malicious prosecution adds the costs of defending against criminal charges, legal fees, missed work from court appearances, and reputational harm from being formally accused.

Together, these claims often produce higher awards. Courts in New York may also allow punitive damages if the misconduct was egregious, for example, if officers pursued charges knowing they were baseless. Punitive damages punish not just for the harm done but for the deliberate abuse of power.

The overlap means victims aren’t forced to choose. They can seek remedies for both the immediate unlawful detention and the drawn-out harm of fighting unjust charges.

New Hampshire Sets Higher Evidentiary Burdens for Malicious Prosecution Than New York

Not every state handles these claims the same way. In New Hampshire, malicious prosecution claims face a steeper hill. Courts there demand stricter proof of malice, often dismissing cases unless evidence of intentional misconduct is overwhelming. That higher burden means many victims are left without a remedy, even when charges were clearly weak.

New York courts, while still demanding, provide broader avenues. They recognize that malicious intent isn’t usually written in an email or admitted outright. Circumstantial evidence, inconsistencies in testimony, and patterns of misconduct can be enough. This lower evidentiary threshold gives victims in New York a stronger chance of success.

The difference underscores how geography changes justice. In one state, the door is nearly closed. In another, it’s open wide enough to allow real accountability.

How to Prove Abuse of the Justice System

Abuse of the justice system often hides under layers of procedure. Police reports appear official. Prosecutors present cases as if evidence is solid. But digging deeper exposes flaws.

Attorneys look for red flags: Was evidence fabricated? Were witnesses pressured? Did prosecutors ignore exonerating details? Was the prosecution pursued after clear proof of innocence emerged?

In New York, courts also consider whether officials acted beyond their lawful role. If officers pressured prosecutors to pursue charges, or if the prosecution seemed designed to cover up misconduct, it strengthens the claim. Expert testimony, timelines showing unreasonable delays, and prior complaints against the same officials can all demonstrate a broader abuse of power.

Proving abuse means telling the story fully: not just that the victim was confined, but that the entire justice process was twisted against them.

Pursuing Combined Civil Rights Claims

False imprisonment and malicious prosecution aren’t limited to state courts. Victims can also pursue civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. §1983, tying both harms to violations of constitutional rights. False imprisonment ties to the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unlawful seizures. Malicious prosecution connects to both the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, which guard against abuses of due process.

Filing under §1983 opens the door to federal courts and, importantly, to recovery of attorney’s fees under §1988. That levels the playing field when individuals take on cities, police departments, or school districts.

Combined claims also spotlight systemic issues. A case isn’t just about one unlawful arrest, it’s about a pattern of detentions and prosecutions used as intimidation tools. Civil rights lawsuits force institutions to confront misconduct at its root, not just compensate one victim.

Horn Wright, LLP, Will Take on Malicious Prosecution and Imprisonment Together

No one should face both unlawful detention and the nightmare of a baseless prosecution. Yet many New Yorkers do. At Horn Wright, LLP, we take on both claims together, building cases that expose not just the unlawful confinement but also the abuse of legal process that followed. We dig into records, uncover contradictions, and pursue remedies in both state and federal courts. If you’ve been confined without cause and dragged through charges that never should have existed, our civil rights attorneys will fight to hold every responsible party accountable.