Supreme Court Judgement of March 15, 2011.
SECOND: (...) As we said in STS. 922/2010 of 28.10, the legally protected by the crime of illegal detention is individual freedom and involves trapping or detain a person, deprived of their liberty, affecting, within that genre, liberty ambulatory (SSTS . 79/2009, 10.2, 923/2009 of 1.10): The shape is represented cornice by the nuclear verbs by "locking" or "stop" representing unfairly coercive acts for a person, carried out against their will or without it affecting a fundamental right which is the same freedom enshrined ambulatory in the art. 17.1 CE. That unfairly curtails freedom by forcing a person to remain in a particular site closed ("locked") or is prevented from moving in an open space (or "detention") (STC 178/1985).
The jurisprudence of this Court has noted that "the crime of false imprisonment, deprivation of freedom of movement of the taxable person by conduct that would be within the meaning of verbs lock or stop. Instant is a violation that is consumed from the moment that the arrest or confinement takes place, but time is a factor that should be valued, as is necessary for the consummation of a minimum relevant "(STS n º 812/2007, of October 8). In a similar vein, it was said in the STSMore »
No 790/2007 of 8 October that "the nuclear verbs such illegal detention are" locked up "and" stop. " In both cases, the taxpayer is deprived of the possibility of moving place according to his will. In both cases also significantly limited the right to walking while somehow prevents free will in outreach and physics of the human person. If enclosed, deprivation of freedom walking because it is the person within the space limits the length, width and height, change also stop at this functional limitation but in different ways because, without locking materially undertakes to immobility (see in this regard Judgement of November 28, 1994). This offense is projected from three perspectives. The active subject who intentionally limited ambulation of another, the subject person who is mentally or physically disabled-constrained, against his will, and for one last time as a determinant of the deprivation of freedom, although it appears that the consummation originates from the arrest occurs. The type described in the art. CP 163 is a crime that is characterized by the concurrence of the following criteria: 1) the objective element of the type involving deprivation of liberty Wanderings of the person, both physically imprisoned, and stopping, ie, preventing their movement and it is not necessary, then a physical "custody." And that detention is unlawful. 2) the item subjective type, criminal intent, is that the arrest was made in an arbitrary, unjustified, intentional essentially still a crime in which the commission can not be negligent. "