False Imprisonment by Private Security Personnel

Security Guards Do Not Have Unlimited Power

You’ve probably seen it before: a guard at a store pulling a customer into a back office, insisting they “just wait” until the manager arrives. Sometimes it’s about shoplifting suspicions, sometimes it’s about a misunderstanding. The uniform and badge can make it feel official, but here’s the truth, private security personnel don’t have unlimited authority.

At Horn Wright, LLP, we hear from people who thought they had no choice but to stay in that locked room or stand still when ordered by a security guard. The fear is real. A guard’s tone, the threat of calling the police, or even standing in front of the exit can be enough to make someone feel trapped. That, legally, is confinement. And when it happens without legal justification, it can become false imprisonment.

Security guards serve a role. They can protect property, prevent theft, and call law enforcement. But they cannot substitute themselves for police or detain people without limits. When they overstep, the law steps in.

What Security Is Allowed to Do In New York

New York gives retailers and security limited authority under General Business Law §218, sometimes called the “shopkeeper’s privilege.” It allows a merchant, or someone acting for them, to detain a person if there are reasonable grounds to believe shoplifting occurred. But the detention must be reasonable in both manner and time.

That doesn’t mean guards can lock someone away for hours, search through phones, or humiliate a customer in front of crowds. Reasonable detention is narrow: confirming whether merchandise was paid for and holding the person briefly until police arrive if real evidence supports suspicion.

Beyond that, security guards are private citizens. They don’t gain extra arrest powers because of a uniform. New York law makes this distinction clear, if security restrains someone without reasonable cause, it crosses into unlawful detention.

When A Detention Crosses into False Imprisonment

False imprisonment by private security happens more often than many realize. The line is crossed when suspicion is weak or when the detention lasts longer than necessary.

Picture this: a teenager accused of slipping candy into a pocket, pulled into a room, held for two hours, then released when no theft is found. That is classic false imprisonment. Another common example is guards blocking exits during internal theft investigations, forcing employees to stay until confessions are made. The moment the right to leave is stripped without lawful grounds, the guard, and often their employer, become liable.

Courts in New York look closely at two things: Was the suspicion reasonable? Was the detention carried out in a way the law allows? If either answer is “no,” the confinement is unlawful. Even short detentions, if done aggressively or without cause, may qualify as false imprisonment.

Gathering Evidence Against Private Security

Victims often feel powerless in the moment, but gathering evidence afterward can make a major difference.

• Surveillance footage: Most stores and offices have cameras. Video can confirm how long someone was held and what happened during detention.
• Witnesses: Fellow customers, employees, or even other security staff can provide testimony about what they saw and heard.
• Documentation: If a guard made a written report, demanded a signature, or contacted police, those records help establish what occurred.

Medical or psychological records also matter. Panic attacks, humiliation, or lingering anxiety are common after false imprisonment. Under New York’s CPLR Article 31, attorneys can request these records, along with internal company policies, emails, and training materials, to show patterns of misconduct.

Evidence doesn’t just prove what happened. It tells a story juries and judges can’t ignore.

New Hampshire Law Provides Greater Leeway to Private Security Than New York Law

Not all states treat private security the same way. In New Hampshire, laws give broader leeway to merchants and their staff when detaining suspected shoplifters. Courts there often require stronger proof of misconduct before ruling against security, giving guards more breathing room even when suspicions are thin.

New York, by contrast, interprets the shopkeeper’s privilege narrowly. Detention must be backed by real, reasonable suspicion and carried out with care. That difference means victims in New York have a stronger chance of success when guards go too far.

This contrast matters because it shows how state protections can either empower or restrain private security. In New York, the balance tilts more toward protecting individual liberty.

How To File a Claim Against a Company or Guard

False imprisonment claims can be filed directly against the guard and, more importantly, against the company that employed them. Employers are often held responsible for their workers’ actions under the principle of vicarious liability.

In New York, these claims are typically filed in civil court. Plaintiffs must show that the guard intentionally confined them without consent and without lawful justification. Evidence of excessive detention or weak suspicion usually meets that burden.

Federal remedies may also apply. If security works in cooperation with police or acts under “color of law,” a victim may bring a civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. §1983. These claims are powerful because they highlight constitutional violations, such as unlawful seizure under the Fourth Amendment, not just state torts.

Filing a claim is about more than money. It challenges practices that allow guards to abuse authority.

Remedies Available to Victims of Security Detention

What can victims expect if they prove their claim? Remedies go beyond dollars and cents.

Compensation often includes damages for emotional distress, humiliation, and reputational harm. Being marched through a store under suspicion, only to be proven innocent, is more than embarrassing, it’s damaging. Victims can also recover lost wages if detention caused missed work or ongoing psychological harm.

In cases where misconduct is blatant or repeated, courts may award punitive damages. These punish companies that allow guards to misuse authority, creating pressure for change in policies and training.

For some victims, the most important remedy is acknowledgment, a public statement or judgment that what happened wasn’t just “policy,” it was unlawful confinement. Courts in New York recognize that remedying harm means restoring both dignity and freedom.

Horn Wright, LLP, Protects Victims of Private Security Abuse

Private security exists to protect property, not to strip people of their liberty. When guards overstep, they turn safety into abuse. At Horn Wright, LLP, we’ve fought cases where innocent shoppers, employees, and travelers were detained unlawfully by security personnel. Our civil rights attorneys know how to gather records, challenge company defenses, and hold both guards and employers accountable. If you’ve been confined by private security without cause, we’ll stand with you and fight until justice is restored.