The Cuypers Case: Municipal Prosecutions, Furtive Movements, and the Taser

How a Local Ordinance and a Buzzword from Police Training Collided in Superior, Wisconsin

Policing Meets Irony

For Ian Cuypers, a 21-year-old DoorDash driver, February 28, 2024, should have been a routine night of deliveries. But a wrong turn on a one-way street ended with flashing lights, conflicting commands, and a Taser to his back. What followed was a criminal charge—not under Wisconsin state law but under a municipal ordinance for resisting an officer.

The charge itself was questionable, but the justification given for escalating the traffic stop is where the irony deepens. Officer Justin Taylor, relatively new to the force, cited Cuypers’ “furtive movements” as the reason for calling backup and treating the encounter as a high-risk situation. The term, ubiquitous in police training and frequently deployed to justify heightened suspicion, became the cornerstone of the city’s case. But in this instance, it seemed less like a reasoned assessment and more like a buzzword a rookie cop had just learned at the academy.

The jury’s not-guilty verdict in Cuypers’ case, coupled with his ongoing lawsuit against the City of Superior, raises questions about policing practices, the city’s use of local ordinances for serious charges, and how law enforcement leans on terminology that may obscure rather than clarify the facts.

The Incident: A Rookie, a Taser, and a Traffic Stop Gone Awry

What Happened That Night?

On the night of February 28, 2024, Officer Justin Taylor observed Cuypers driving the wrong way down a one-way street. Taylor pulled him over, and what should have been a routine traffic stop quickly escalated.

According to Taylor’s report, he noticed Cuypers making “furtive movements” inside the car—reaching toward the passenger seat and ducking his head. Convinced this signaled danger, Taylor called for backup and approached the situation as a high-risk stop​​.

Furtive Movements: A Police Academy Buzzword

The term “furtive movements” is a staple of police training, meant to describe behavior that could suggest someone is hiding a weapon or contraband. However, it’s also a term prone to overuse and misapplication. For a rookie cop like Taylor, who was likely fresh out of the academy, the phrase became a catch-all explanation for uncertainty.

In court, Cuypers’ lawyer highlighted the irony of this reliance. “The officer didn’t find a weapon. He didn’t find contraband. What he found was fear,” said attorney John Holevoet. “This isn’t about furtive movements—it’s about a young cop using the only term he could think of to justify escalating this situation.”

Cuypers later testified that his “movements” were nothing more than the actions of a scared young driver fumbling to comply. “I was panicking. I thought they just wanted my wallet,” Cuypers said​.

The Prosecution: A Municipal Ordinance and a Misdirection

Why the City Took the Case

Instead of charging Cuypers under Wisconsin’s state statute for resisting arrest, Superior used a city ordinance. This decision allowed the City Attorney, Harley Prell, to manage the case in municipal court, bypassing oversight from the District Attorney’s office.

Municipal ordinance violations are typically treated as non-criminal offenses, with a lower burden of proof than state prosecutions. However, using this mechanism to prosecute a case involving a Taser and allegations of excessive force raised eyebrows:

1. Revenue Questions: Ordinance prosecutions often result in fines that go directly to city coffers, raising concerns about financial incentives.
2. Oversight Gaps: Municipal attorneys face far less scrutiny than district attorneys, who are publicly elected and accountable to a larger constituency.
3. Expertise Mismatches: Cases involving body-camera footage and constitutional rights are often better handled at the state level, where prosecutors have more resources and training​​.

The jury’s not-guilty verdict suggests they found the city’s prosecution unconvincing and the reliance on “furtive movements” flimsy.

The Verdict: What the Jury Saw

The jury rejected the city’s case, which relied heavily on body-camera footage and Taylor’s interpretation of Cuypers’ behavior. While the footage showed Ian hesitating to kneel and follow commands, his defense argued this was the natural reaction of a terrified young man overwhelmed by conflicting orders.

The rookie cop’s invocation of “furtive movements” seemed to fall flat when contrasted with Cuypers’ explanation. Instead of an armed and dangerous suspect, jurors saw a kid caught off guard by an escalating situation he didn’t understand.

The Lessons from the Cuypers Case

Rethinking Furtive Movements

1. A Need for Specificity: Courts increasingly demand that officers provide clear, articulable facts when citing “furtive movements.” Generalized fears are no substitute for evidence.

2. The Risks of Relying on Buzzwords: As Cuypers’ case illustrates, vague terminology like “furtive movements” can undermine a case when it appears officers are grasping for justification.

Reforming Municipal Ordinance Prosecutions

1. Clear Guidelines: Cities should establish stricter rules about when ordinances can replace state charges, reserving them for minor infractions.
2. Oversight Mechanisms: Municipal attorneys should face public accountability for decisions to prosecute significant cases.
3. Transparency in Revenue: Cities must disclose how much they collect from ordinance prosecutions and how those funds are used​​.

What This Means for Superior

For Superior, the Cuypers case is a wake-up call. The reliance on a rookie cop’s snap judgment and a municipal ordinance to justify a high-stakes encounter has exposed the city to both public criticism and financial liability.

For taxpayers, the case raises pressing questions: How much money is spent defending these prosecutions? How much revenue is collected from ordinance violations, and is it worth the erosion of public trust?

For Ian, the not-guilty verdict affirms his belief that he was unfairly treated. His ongoing lawsuit will test whether the city is willing to address these systemic issues or continue relying on practices that prioritize efficiency over fairness.

Conclusion: Justice Beyond Buzzwords

The Cuypers case is about more than a single traffic stop—it’s about how terms like “furtive movements” and systems like municipal ordinances can obscure justice instead of delivering it. For a rookie officer, it was a reflexive use of a phrase he learned in training. For Ian, it was the excuse that led to his fear and trauma.

As his lawsuit unfolds, it’s clear that Superior must reckon with this case—not just to address Ian’s claims but to rebuild trust in a system that needs to serve its citizens, not its convenience.

When Courts Push Back on Furtive Movements

While courts sometimes uphold the use of furtive movements as justification, there is a growing body of cases where judges reject it as insufficient evidence for escalation:

• State v. Harris (2021): An Ohio court suppressed evidence obtained during a stop where the officer cited “furtive movements” as the sole reason for suspicion. The court ruled that vague and unsubstantiated claims did not meet the legal standard for probable cause​.

• Doornbos v. City of Chicago (2017): In this federal case, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals allowed a man to sue after being stopped and tackled by plainclothes officers for allegedly making furtive movements. The court emphasized that officers must provide specific, articulable reasons for their actions​.

• Hughes v. Kisela (2016): A Ninth Circuit decision allowed a lawsuit to proceed after a police officer shot a woman holding a kitchen knife. The court found that “suspicious” behavior was not enough to justify the level of force used.