Racquel Ferrell and the parents of Kristie Ferrell sued Ruby Tuesday, Inc. and its manager Christian Mikula for false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, * * *. After extensive discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment on all counts. In a one-page order stating only that no genuine issues as to any material fact existed, the trial court granted the motion, and the Ferrells’ appeal. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendants on the Ferrells’ claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress * * * but reverse the grant on the false imprisonment claim.

* * *

   * * * [T]he evidence shows that on Friday night, August 6, 2006, 18-year-old Racquel Ferrell and 13-year-old Kristie Ferrell went to Ruby Tuesday. After they ate and paid their bill, the girls left the restaurant, got into their car, and drove out of the parking lot. As they began to enter the highway, Racquel noticed a black truck following her very closely with its headlights on high. She could not see well out of her rear-view mirror with the bright lights behind her, so she changed lanes, but the truck changed lanes with her and stayed close behind. She switched lanes again, and the truck did too. A marked police car by the side of the road pulled onto the highway between the girls’ car and the following truck and pulled the car over. After asking Racquel if she had any drugs or weapons, the officer pulled her out of the car, placed her in handcuffs, and put her in the back seat of his patrol car. Another officer removed Kristie from the car, placed her in handcuffs, and put her in the back of another patrol car.

   All of the police officers gathered to talk to the driver of the truck that had been following the Ferrells, who turned out to be a uniformed off-duty police officer working as a security guard for Ruby Tuesday. The officer who arrested Racquel returned to the patrol car where she was being held and told her if she had not paid her Ruby Tuesday bill she was going to jail. She protested, and the officer conferred again with the other officers, then returned to the car and said, ‘‘It was a mistake.’’ He explained that the manager at the restaurant had sent the off-duty officer after them because he said the girls had not paid their bill, but they did not fit the description of the two people who had walked out without paying. The officers removed the handcuffs from Racquel and Kristie and returned them to their car. After asking for Racquel’s driver’s license and obtaining information about both girls, the officer told them they were free to go.

   Mikula had been an assistant manager for about a month, and was the only manager at Ruby Tuesday that night. One of the servers, Robert, reported that his customers at Table 24 had a complaint, so Mikula talked to the couple and told them he would ‘‘take care of ’’ the food item in question. The customers were a man and a woman in their late 20s to early 30s. Mikula left the table to discuss the matter with Robert, after which server Aaron told Mikula that the patrons at Table 24 had left without paying. Mikula looked at the table, confirmed they had not left any money for the bill, and went out the main entrance. He saw a car pulling out of the parking lot, and said to the off-duty officer, ‘‘Hey, I think they just left without paying.’’ The officer said, ‘‘Who, them?’’ Mikula said, ‘‘I think so,’’ and the officer got up and went to his vehicle.

* * *

   Mikula knew the officer was going to follow the people in the car and would stop them, but did not ask the officer if he had seen who got into the car. He did not give the officer a description of the people at Table 24, and did not know the race, age, gender, or number of people in the car being followed. He did not know if there were people in anyof the other cars in the parking lot. He did not ask any other people in the restaurant if they had seen the people at Table 24 leave the building, which had two exits. He did not know how long the people had been gone before Aaron told him they left, or whether another customer had picked up money from Table 24. He could have tried to obtain more information to determine whether the people in the car he pointed out were the people who had been sitting at Table 24, but did not do so.

* * *

   In this case, the Ferrells were detained without a warrant, and thus have a claim for false imprisonment * * *. [Citation.] ‘‘False imprisonment is the unlawful detention of the person of another, for any length of time, whereby such person is deprived of his personal liberty.’’ [Citation.] ‘‘The only essential elements of the action being the detention and its unlawfulness, malice and the want of probable cause need not be shown.’’ [Citations.]

   The evidence in this case clearly establishes that the Ferrells were detained. ‘‘* * * under modern tort law an individual may be imprisoned when his movements are restrained in the open street, or in a traveling automobile.’’ [Citation.] Ruby Tuesday does not argue otherwise, but instead argues that the evidence established sufficient probable cause and the plaintiffs failed to establish that Mikula acted with malice. But malice is not an element of false imprisonment, * * *. Further, * * * the mere existence of probable cause standing alone has no real defensive bearing on the issue of liability [for false imprisonment]. [Citation.]

* * *

   Arresting or procuring the arrest of a person without a warrant constitutes a tort, ‘‘unless he can justify under some of the exceptions in which arrest and imprisonment without a warrant are permitted by law, [citations].’’ Generally, one ‘‘who causes or directs the arrest of another by an officer without a warrant may be held liable for false imprisonment, in the absence of justification, and the burden of proving that such imprisonment lies within an exception rests upon the person… causing the imprisonment.’’ [Citations.] * * *

   Accordingly, as the Ferrells have established an unlawful detention, the next issue to consider is whether Mikula ‘‘caused’’ the arrest. Whether a party is potentially liable for false imprisonment by ‘‘directly or indirectly urg[ing] a law enforcement official to begin criminal proceedings’’ or is not liable because he ‘‘merely relates facts to an official who then makes an independent decision to arrest’’ is a factual question for the jury. [Citation.] The party need not expressly request an arrest, but may be liable if his conduct and acts ‘‘procured and directed the arrest.’’ [Citation.]

* * *

   Here, Mikula told the officer that the car leaving the parking lot contained people who left without paying for their food, although he did not know or try to ascertain who was in the car. He also knew the officer was going to detain the people in the car and could have tried to stop him, but made no attempt to do so. Accordingly, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the defendants on the plaintiffs’ false imprisonment claim.

* * *

   The Ferrells also contend that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the defendants on their claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The elements of a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress are: (1) intentional or reckless conduct; (2) that is extreme and outrageous; (3) a causal connection between the wrongful conduct and the emotional distress; and (4) severe emotional distress. [Citation.] Further,

[l]iability for this tort has been found only where the conduct has been so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. Generally, the case is one in which the recitation of the facts to an average member of the community would arouse his resentment against the actor, and lead him to exclaim, ‘‘Outrageous!’’

   [Citation.]
   In this case, the action upon which the Ferrells base their emotional distress claim is being stopped by the police, placed in handcuffs, and held in a patrol car for a short period of time before being released. While this incident was unfortunate, the question raised by the evidence was whether the restaurant manager’s actions were negligent, not whether he acted maliciously or his conduct was extreme, atrocious, or utterly intolerable. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the Ferrells’ claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

* * *

   Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.