Which of the following scenarios constitutes false imprisonment?

The scenario that constitutes false imprisonment is when a person locks a friend in a room for personal gain. False imprisonment involves the unlawful restraint of a person against their will. In this case, locking someone in a room restricts their freedom of movement and does so without legal justification or consent, thereby fulfilling the criteria for false imprisonment. The motive of personal gain indicates an abuse of power and a disregard for the friend's autonomy, further emphasizing the wrongful nature of the act.

In contrast, asking a customer to leave a store is typically a lawful exercise of a business's right to refuse service, provided it's done without discrimination or other unlawful methods. Similarly, a parent's action to prevent a child from leaving the house usually falls within the accepted boundaries of parental authority and responsibility, which is not considered false imprisonment. Giving a ride against someone's will may imply coercion or manipulation, but it does not equate to the direct physical confinement associated with false imprisonment. Thus, the most clear-cut example of false imprisonment among the options provided is the act of locking a friend in a room for personal gain.