The employer is probably liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior, whose considerations are:<p>- Was the act committed within the time and space limits of the agency?<p>- Was the offense incidental to, or of the same general nature as, the responsibilities the agent is authorized to perform?<p>- Was the agent motivated to any degree to benefit the principal by committing the act?<p>It seems like the balance of those in this case would make the employer liable, as the employee&#x27;s actions were committed using the property of his employer and while engaged in his employment activities. Also, his actions were of the same general nature (detaining someone) as the responsibilities he is authorized to perform.