Kopec v. Tate

Michael Kopec was stopped by Officer Tyrone Tate of the Whitemarsh Township Police Department in Pennsylvania. During the encounter, Tate allegedly used excessive force including slamming Kopec’s head into his vehicle and choking him, despite Kopec not resisting. Kopec filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Fourth Amendment violations against Officer Tate individually and against the Township of Whitemarsh under a Monell municipal liability theory.

The Third Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendants. The court held that Officer Tate was not entitled to qualified immunity because the right to be free from gratuitous physical force during a seizure, when a person is not resisting, was clearly established law. The court emphasized that an officer’s use of force must be proportional to the circumstances, and that beating a non-resisting motorist during a traffic stop clearly crosses the constitutional line.

The court also addressed municipal liability, holding that Kopec had presented sufficient evidence that the Township of Whitemarsh had a custom or policy of tolerating excessive force. Evidence showed that multiple prior complaints had been filed against Officer Tate, that supervisors were aware of his behavior, and that no meaningful corrective action was taken. This evidence was enough to create a genuine dispute about whether the municipality’s deliberate indifference amounted to an unconstitutional custom or policy under Monell v. Department of Social Services.

For pro se litigants, Kopec v. Tate is valuable because it demonstrates how to build a municipal liability claim alongside an individual officer claim. The case shows that prior complaints against an officer, combined with supervisory inaction, can establish the “custom or policy” needed to hold a city or township liable for damages. It also reinforces that even during routine traffic stops, officers cannot use force against compliant individuals.