Penal Code §236 defines false imprisonment as 'the unlawful violation of the personal liberty of another.' Which of the following is the most accurate civil-liability description for a security guard?
Explanation
False imprisonment is the unlawful violation of personal liberty (PC §236) and is also a tort under Civil Code §43, which protects personal liberty. The civil tort requires (1) intentional confinement, (2) without consent, (3) without lawful privilege, for (4) an appreciable time. Duration can be brief — even momentary confinement is actionable. Physical injury is not required; the tort vindicates the dignity interest in liberty. Confinement can be effected by physical barrier, threat, or assertion of authority — handcuffs are not required. A guard who detains beyond §490.5(f)'s reasonable-time-and-manner privilege risks both criminal and civil liability.
Law Reference: Cal. Civil Code §43; Cal. Penal Code §236This topic, taught in full in the California Guard Card (BSIS Security Guard) guide. California Guard Card — Complete Study Guide (2026) — PDF + EPUB, $9.99 · 14-day refund →
Practice all 200 questions free — no signup required.
Own the complete California Guard Card (BSIS Security Guard) guide — PDF + EPUB, $9.99 →
Related questions on this topic
- Under Penal Code §237, false imprisonment is punishable as a felony when it is effected by:
- Penal Code §242 defines battery as any willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another. Which of the following best describes the standard for security guards?
- Penal Code §240 defines assault as an unlawful attempt, coupled with present ability, to commit a violent injury on another person. For a guard, which scenario most clearly meets all assault elements?
- A security guard observes a person who has been previously warned, in writing, not to return to a posted business property. The person re-enters the premises. Under PC §602(o) and related subdivisions, the guard's legal posture is:
- Under respondeat superior and BPC §7583.39, a licensed PPO (private patrol operator) is generally liable for its employee guard's torts committed:
- A PPO hires a guard without conducting the BSIS-mandated background check. The guard later commits an assault against a patron. Beyond respondeat superior, the PPO may face liability under which independent theory?
Last reviewed: · editorial process