probable cause existed to arrest Ms. Mathis at the scene of the traffic stop. We cannot say the same to the extent that the proposed amendment challenged her continued detention at CBT. Though not exacting in its details, the proposed amendment appears to assert a cause of action for false imprisonment. 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 § 787.02(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2004) (“The term ‘false imprisonment’ means forcibly, by threat, or secretly confining, abducting, imprisoning, or restraining another person without lawful authority and against her or his will.”); Everett v. Fla. Inst. of Tech., 503 So.2d 1382, 1383 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (<HOLDING>); Candy H. v. Redemption Ranch, Inc., 563
holding that plaintiff could not sidestep the ftcas exclusion of false imprisonment claims by suing for the damage of false imprisonment under the label of negligence holding that false arrest and false imprisonment claim were not duplicative holding that the chief financial officer of a hospital had sufficient access to the allegedly false cost reports resulting from the false invoices to require him to plead at least one example of a false claim with particularity holding that false arrest is one means of committing false imprisonment holding that a claim that a hospital involuntarily held the plaintiff without complying with baker act provisions adequately alleged the tort of false imprisonment