Ian Cuypers Lawsuit: Taser Use Ruled Unconstitutional

The Ian Cuypers lawsuit is a federal civil rights case brought by a former DoorDash driver against the City of Superior, Wisconsin, and three of its police officers after he was tased during a February 28, 2024 traffic stop. On February 9, 2026, U.S. District Judge James D. Peterson granted Cuypers partial summary judgment, ruling that Officer Taylor Gaard’s use of the taser was objectively unreasonable and violated clearly established constitutional law.¹ The remaining claims are set for a federal jury trial in Madison beginning July 27, 2026.²

What Happened During the Traffic Stop

Cuypers, then 22, was delivering for DoorDash in Superior when he drove the wrong way down a one-way street. Officer Justin Taylor, a probationary officer who had finished field training two days earlier, pulled him over.³ Cuypers stopped immediately and started looking through his glove compartment for insurance paperwork. Taylor called for backup, and four more Superior officers arrived within minutes.⁴

Officers Taylor and Taylor Gaard drew their firearms and pointed them at the car. They ordered Cuypers out, and he complied. Multiple officers then shouted commands at once, telling him to walk backward toward them with his hands up. According to the complaint and the body camera footage, the commands conflicted, but Cuypers kept his hands raised.¹

Sergeant Matthew Brown ordered Cuypers to get down on his left knee. When Cuypers asked what was happening, Gaard shouted, “Do it now, or you’re going to get tased!” Seconds later, before Cuypers could comply, Gaard fired her taser twice, striking him in the back and legs. He collapsed face-first onto the pavement, hitting his chin. As officers handcuffed him, Gaard warned, “Don’t move or you’re going to get tased again.”⁴ The body camera captured Cuypers asking, “I’m going to die here, aren’t I? Am I going to die?”³

When he was tased, Cuypers was unarmed, had his hands raised, stood several yards from the officers, and had made no threatening movements or statements.⁴

The Criminal Charge and Acquittal

Taylor issued Cuypers a citation for driving the wrong way and charged him with resisting or obstructing an officer. According to the later civil complaint, Sergeant Brown told Taylor after the stop that “he did everything right” and gave him instructions on what charges to pursue, allegedly to justify the force used.⁴

The obstruction charge went to a jury in Douglas County Circuit Court, and on July 16, 2024, the jury acquitted Cuypers. He was ordered to pay a fine for the one-way violation.⁵ His attorney, Nora Snyder, said Cuypers “did everything that you’re supposed to do when you’re pulled over for a traffic stop.” Cuypers also lost his job in Denver because he had to travel back to Wisconsin for court proceedings.⁶

The Federal Civil Rights Lawsuit

Cuypers filed suit on October 24, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. The case, Cuypers v. City of Superior, et al., No. 24-cv-743, names Officers Taylor and Gaard, Sergeant Brown, and the City of Superior.⁷ An amended complaint filed on November 14, 2024, asserts five counts:

Excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, based on officers pointing firearms and Gaard’s use of the taser.
Failure to intervene under § 1983, alleging the other officers stood by during the tasing.
Malicious prosecution under Wisconsin law, alleging the obstruction charge was pursued without probable cause to cover for the force used.
Intentional infliction of emotional distress under state law.
Indemnification, seeking to hold the City of Superior financially responsible for any judgment against its officers under Wisconsin’s indemnification statute.

The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages for bodily injury, pain, suffering, mental distress, humiliation, loss of income, and medical expenses, plus punitive damages against each officer and attorneys’ fees. No specific dollar figure was pleaded.⁶ Cuypers is represented by Nora Snyder, Ben Elson, and Brad Thomson of the People’s Law Office in Chicago.⁷

Judge Peterson’s Summary Judgment Ruling

On February 9, 2026, Judge Peterson granted Cuypers summary judgment on the excessive force claim tied to the taser. “The video evidence leaves no doubt that Cuypers was not actively resisting and did not pose a threat to the officers or anyone else on the scene,” he wrote. “Gaard’s use of a taser was objectively unreasonable and violated clearly established law.”¹

Peterson called it “not a close case” and said “no reasonable jury could find that the use of a taser was reasonable here.” Citing Seventh Circuit precedent, he noted that using a taser against a non-violent suspect who is not actively resisting and poses no threat is prohibited. Body camera footage showed Cuypers pulled over immediately, followed instructions, exited his vehicle, and kept his hands above his head from the moment he stepped out until the taser was deployed.³

Qualified Immunity Denied

The officers argued they were entitled to qualified immunity, which shields government officials from liability unless their conduct violates clearly established rights. Peterson rejected those arguments. He denied qualified immunity to Gaard on both the taser and the firearm-pointing claim, and to Taylor on the firearm-pointing claim.

The court rejected the defense’s argument that Cuypers posed a threat because he engaged in “target glancing” (looking around at officers), writing that police cannot use significant force simply because a suspect looks at them. Peterson likewise dismissed the argument that Cuypers’ “furtive movements” (searching his glove compartment for insurance paperwork) justified drawing weapons, noting he was unarmed and posed no danger.⁸ Peterson also found that officers lacked probable cause to charge Cuypers with obstructing an officer, reinforcing the malicious prosecution claim.¹

What the Jury Will Decide

The taser-based excessive force claim is resolved as a matter of law, so the jury’s only task on that count will be to determine how much Cuypers is owed in damages. Four other claims remain live: the excessive force claims based on officers pointing firearms at Cuypers, failure to intervene, malicious prosecution, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.⁹ On those, the jury will decide both liability and damages.

The trial is scheduled to begin July 27, 2026, in Madison, and will be split into two parts: the first phase will address damages for the taser-related constitutional violation, and the second will cover liability and damages on the remaining claims.² No public settlement has been reported.¹⁰

Status of the Officers

Both Gaard and Taylor are no longer employed by the Superior Police Department. The circumstances and timing of their departures have not been publicly disclosed.⁵ Even so, the City of Superior remains obligated under Wisconsin law to indemnify them for acts committed within the scope of their employment. The amended complaint does not reference any internal disciplinary investigation into the incident.⁴

1
People’s Law Office. Judge Rules That Superior Police Officer Who Tased DoorDash Driver Violated Driver’s Constitutional Rights
2
Northern News Now. Judge Allows Excessive Force Lawsuit Against Superior Police to Go to Trial
3
WPR. Federal Judge: Superior Cop Wrongly Fired Taser at DoorDash Driver During Traffic Stop
4
WPR. First Amended Complaint, Cuypers v. City of Superior
5
Superior Telegram. Federal Judge Finds Superior Officer Used Excessive Force
6
Northern News Now. DoorDash Driver Sues Superior PD Officers Over Use of Tasers During Traffic Stop
7
People’s Law Office. PLO Lawyers Filed a Civil Rights Lawsuit on Behalf of a DoorDash Driver Tased by Superior Police
8
WPR. Cuypers v. Taylor, Opinion and Order
9
Wisconsin Law Journal. Federal Judge Rules Superior Police Wrong to Tase During Traffic Stop
10
WDIO. Judge Rules Against Superior Officers in Excessive Force Case