Cir.1998) (citing Weissman); Hernandez v. Metro-Dade County, 992 F.Supp. 1365, 1368 n. 2 (S.D.Fla.1997). Some courts have, however, found situations where the two claims were not treated identically. See Mathis v. Coats, 24 So.3d 1284, 1288 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (“False arrest and false imprisonment are closely related, but false imprisonment is a broader common law tort; false arrest is only one of several methods of committing false imprisonment.”); see also Ortega v. Christian, 85 F.3d 1521, 1526 (11th Cir.1996) (“under certain circumstances, a detention following a valid arrest may present a viable section 1983 claim where the detainee protests the detention on the basis of misidentification”); Soucre v. City of Tampa, No. 14-cv-2815-T-30TBM, 2015 WL 144275 (M.D.Fla. Jan. 12, 2015) (<HOLDING>); 24A Fla. Jur.2d False Imprisonment § 3
holding that false arrest and false imprisonment claim were not duplicative holding that claims for false arrest and imprisonment under  1983 accrue at the time of the arrest holding that false arrest is one means of committing false imprisonment holding that state jurisdiction over claims by union members against employer for false arrest false imprisonment and malicious prosecution were not preempted under garmon holding that because there was probable cause for arresting plaintiff plaintiffs claims whether under section 1983 or new york state law that were predicated on false arrest or false imprisonment compelled dismissal