Opinion ID: 1377359
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: False Arrest (Imprisonment)

Text: In contrast to abuse of process, false imprisonment is listed in AS 09.10.070(1). Jenkins argues that this is an action for false arrest. False arrest and false imprisonment are not separate torts. A false arrest is one way to commit false imprisonment; since an arrest involves restraint, it always involves imprisonment. City of Nome v. Ailak, 570 P.2d 162, 168 (Alaska 1977) (citation omitted). In Hazen v. Municipality of Anchorage, 718 P.2d 456 (Alaska 1986) we stated: The elements of a claim for false arrest are: (1) a restraint upon plaintiff's freedom (2) without proper legal authority. Id. at 461 (citing W. Prosser, Law of Torts § 11 (4th ed. 1971)). By alleging that the police arrested him and apparently confined him without justification or probable cause, Jenkins has sufficiently pled a claim for false arrest (imprisonment). Because his action is against police officers acting in their official capacity, however, his claim is not barred by AS 09.10.070(1)'s two-year period of limitations. Rather, it falls squarely within the specifically provided [for] otherwise exception of AS 09.10.070(1). AS 09.10.060(a) specifically provides otherwise for actions brought against ... peace officer[s] ... upon a liability incurred by the doing of an act in an official capacity. Thus any possible distinctions between false imprisonment and false arrest are irrelevant for the purpose of determining the applicable statute of limitations. Jenkins' cause of action for false arrest (imprisonment) falls under the three-year limitations period of AS 09.10.060(a), and is not barred by the two-year statute of limitations.