CJ-2026-00039 - Joseph Robert Cunnius v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF CHEROKEE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA; CHEROKEE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; CITY OF HULBERT, OKLAHOMA; HULBERT POLICE DEPARTMENT; DYLAN CARDER

What's This Case About?

Let’s get one thing straight: in the summer of 2024, a man in rural Oklahoma was arrested, physically injured, and then forced at gunpoint—well, metaphorically, but still—by a police officer to unlock his phone so it could be searched without a warrant, all because someone thought he might have violated a protective order that didn’t even say he couldn’t contact his wife. And instead of saying, “Oops, our bad,” the officer reportedly said, “This is why the city loses money — because of cops like me. Take him to jail.” So yeah. This isn’t just about a traffic stop gone sideways. This is about power, procedure, and one man’s cell phone becoming a digital crime scene in a case where… there may not have been a crime at all.

Meet Joseph Robert Cunnius, a regular guy from Muskogee, Oklahoma, who found himself at the center of a law enforcement rodeo he didn’t sign up for. On June 12, 2024, Cunnius was served with a protective order — the kind that says, “Hey, keep your distance from this person,” usually issued in domestic situations. He didn’t argue. He didn’t resist. He packed up and left his home, doing exactly what the court told him to do. But as he pulled away, a Hulbert Police Department cruiser tailed him — not subtly, not casually, but close enough to make it clear: You’re being watched. Half a mile down the road, lights flash, sirens blare, and Cunnius is pulled over. No explanation. No “license and registration.” Just, “Get out of the truck.” When he asked why, he was shoved, spun around, and had his arms twisted behind his back with enough force to allegedly worsen a pre-existing neck and nerve condition. Ouch. And again: still no reason given for the arrest.

Then, like a villainous guest star on a police procedural, in rolls Deputy Dylan Carder of the Cherokee County Sheriff’s Office. Carder, who had personally served the protective order earlier that day, shows up and drops the bomb: “You sent a text to your wife.” That’s the accusation. That’s the alleged violation. Except — and this is a big except — the protective order didn’t actually prohibit contact. The checkbox for “No Contact” was left blank. Multiple officers reportedly confirmed this during the stop. It was like watching a group of people read the same rulebook and one guy going, “Nah, I’m gonna play by my own rules.” And Carder, allegedly, was that guy. Despite the lack of legal basis, he allegedly said, “This is why the city loses money — because of cops like me,” before ordering Cunnius hauled off to jail. It’s the kind of line that sounds like a bad joke — if it weren’t so terrifyingly real.

Now, here’s where it gets even more Black Mirror. While Cunnius is handcuffed, restrained, and completely under police control, Carder demands he unlock his phone. No warrant. No judge. No Miranda warning. Just, “Give me access.” And when Cunnius complied — under duress, while physically restrained — Carder allegedly searched the phone anyway. Let’s pause for a second: your phone is not a public library. It’s not a lost wallet. It’s a vault of personal data — texts, photos, emails, location history, your entire digital life. The Supreme Court ruled in Riley v. California (2014) that cops cannot search your phone without a warrant, even after an arrest. It’s a constitutional firewall. And here, that firewall was allegedly bulldozed by a single officer who seemed more interested in proving a point than following the law.

So why are we talking about this now? Because Cunnius isn’t just mad — he’s suing. And not just for pocket change. He’s suing under federal civil rights law, specifically 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which lets people sue government officials for violating their constitutional rights. The claims are stacked like a legal Jenga tower: unlawful arrest (no probable cause), excessive force (the arm twist that caused injury), unlawful search of his phone (digital privacy violation), and even a Monell claim — legalese for “your department’s culture of bad training and loose oversight caused this mess.” He’s also suing under Oklahoma state law for false imprisonment, assault and battery, negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress — because, let’s be honest, being arrested for a crime that doesn’t exist while your phone gets ransacked by a rogue cop would mess anyone up.

Now, about that demand: Cunnius is seeking at least $10,000 in compensatory damages. That number might sound low — until you remember this isn’t a personal injury case with massive medical bills. This is about principle, dignity, and the cost of being treated like a criminal when you’ve done nothing wrong. Ten grand doesn’t cover years of therapy, but it’s a starting point. And he’s also asking for punitive damages — not to compensate him, but to punish the officers involved, especially Carder, if it’s proven they acted recklessly or with deliberate indifference. That’s the nuclear option in civil court: “You didn’t just make a mistake — you knew better, and you did it anyway.”

So what’s our take? Look, we’re not defending anyone who violates a protective order. But this case isn’t about that. It’s about an arrest based on a misinterpretation of a court order — one that multiple officers double-checked and still got wrong. It’s about using force that caused real injury. It’s about a warrantless phone search that feels more like something out of a dystopian thriller than a small-town traffic stop. And that quote — “This is why the city loses money — because of cops like me” — is either the most self-aware confession in law enforcement history… or the most terrifying admission of systemic arrogance. Is it a joke? A boast? A cry for help? We don’t know. But it’s chilling.

The most absurd part? That this allegedly happened in broad daylight, on a country road, with multiple officers present — and no one stepped in. No one said, “Hey, the form doesn’t say no contact.” No one said, “We can’t search his phone.” No one said, “Maybe we shouldn’t twist his arms like he’s in a wrestling match.” Instead, they followed the loudest voice, not the law. And that’s the real tragedy here: not just what happened to Joseph Cunnius, but what it says about how easily power can be abused — even in a place where everyone probably knows everyone, and the police chief might still wave at your kid during Little League.

We’re rooting for accountability. Not vengeance. Not a takedown of all law enforcement. But a clear message: you don’t get to make up the rules as you go, especially when a person’s rights are on the line. And if you do? Well, the courts are open. See you there.

We’re entertainers, not lawyers. This is based on a court filing — not a verdict. Everyone is presumed innocent until proven otherwise. But man… this filing sure makes you raise an eyebrow.

Case Overview

Jury Trial Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

Brian E. Duke

DUKE LAW FIRM, PLLC

Relief Sought

$10,000 Monetary

Plaintiffs

Joseph Robert Cunnius individual
Rep: Brian E. Duke, OBA # 14710

Defendants

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Fourth Amendment Unlawful Seizure / False Arrest)	Carder and the Doe Officers acted under color of state law. Defendants unlawfully seized and arrested Plaintiff without probable cause and without lawful justification, in violation of the Fourth Amendment as incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment.
2	42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Fourth Amendment Excessive Force)	Defendants used objectively unreasonable and excessive force during Plaintiff's detention and arrest, including forcefully twisting Plaintiff's arms and hands behind Plaintiff's back and causing neck/nerve injury, in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
3	42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Fourth Amendment Unlawful Search and Seizure of Cell Phone / Compelled Unlocking)	While Plaintiff was restrained, Carder demanded that Plaintiff unlock Plaintiff's phone and searched the contents of Plaintiff's phone without a warrant and without lawful, voluntary consent, violating the Fourth Amendment.
4	42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Fourteenth Amendment)	To the extent any of the foregoing conduct is analyzed under the Fourteenth Amendment, Defendants deprived Plaintiff of liberty without due process of law and violated rights secured by the United States Constitution.
5	Municipal Liability (Monell) Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983	Upon information and belief, the County and the City maintained policies, customs, and practices, and/or exhibited deliberate indifference through failures to train, supervise, and discipline officers regarding lawful stops and arrests, use of force, and searches of digital devices. Such policies, customs, and failures were a moving force behind the constitutional violations alleged herein.
6	False Arrest / False Imprisonment (Oklahoma Law; GTCA)	Defendants caused Plaintiff to be restrained and arrested without lawful justification. To the extent Carder and/or the Doe Officers acted within the scope of employment, the County and/or City are liable under the GTCA. To the extent any individual defendant acted outside the scope of employment, Plaintiff pleads such claims alternatively against that individual to the extent permitted by Oklahoma law.
7	Assault and Battery (Excessive Force) (Oklahoma Law; GTCA)	Defendants intentionally and unlawfully used physical force against Plaintiff, including forceful grabbing and twisting of Plaintiff’s arms/hands behind Plaintiff’s back, constituting assault and battery under Oklahoma law. Liability is asserted against the County and/or City under the GTCA for acts within scope, and alternatively against individuals for acts outside scope to the extent allowed.
8	Negligence; Negligent Hiring/Training/Supervision (Oklahoma Law; GTCA)	The County and the City, through their employees and supervisors, owed duties to exercise reasonable care in policing, including training, supervision, and discipline. The County and the City breached those duties, and such breaches were a direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injuries and damages.
9	Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (Oklahoma Law; Pleaded in the Alternative)	Defendants’ conduct, including arresting Plaintiff without lawful justification, using excessive force causing injury, and compelling access to and searching Plaintiff’s phone while restrained, was extreme and outrageous and caused Plaintiff severe emotional distress.

Petition Text

1,783 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR CHEROKEE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA JOSEPH ROBERT CUNNIUS Plaintiff, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF CHEROKEE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA; CHEROKEE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; CITY OF HULBERT, OKLAHOMA; HULBERT POLICE DEPARTMENT; DYLAN CARDER, in his individual and official capacities; JOHN DOE AND JANE DOE HULBERT POLICE OFFICERS 1–5, in their individual and official capacities, Defendants. PETITION Plaintiff Joseph Robert Cunnius ('Plaintiff'), by and through counsel, files this Petition against Defendants and alleges as follows: I. PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Joseph Robert Cunnius is an individual resident of Muskogee, Oklahoma. 2. Defendant Board of County Commissioners of Cherokee County, Oklahoma (the "County") is the proper governmental entity for Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act (GTCA) claims arising from acts and omissions of Cherokee County employees, including Cherokee County Sheriff's Office personnel. Plaintiff names the Cherokee County Sheriff's Office for identification purposes; to the extent it is not a suable entity, it is included alternatively and/or should be treated as part of the County. 3. Defendant City of Hulbert, Oklahoma (the "City") is an Oklahoma municipal corporation and is responsible under the GTCA for torts committed by its employees acting within the scope of their employment, including Hulbert Police Department personnel. Plaintiff names the Hulbert Police Department for identification purposes; to the extent it is not a suable entity, it is included alternatively and/or should be treated as part of the City. 4. Defendant Dylan Carder ("Carder") was, at all relevant times, an officer and/or deputy with the Cherokee County Sheriff’s Office acting under color of state law. Carder is sued in his individual and official capacities. 5. Defendants John Doe and Jane Doe Hulbert Police Officers 1–5 (the “Doe Officers”) are presently unknown Hulbert Police Department officers who participated in the events alleged herein while acting under color of state law. Plaintiff will seek leave to amend this Petition to substitute the true names and capacities of these defendants when discovered through investigation and discovery. II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Oklahoma law claims pursuant to the Oklahoma Constitution and laws of the State of Oklahoma. 7. This Court has concurrent jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s federal civil-rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the United States Constitution. 8. Venue is proper in Cherokee County, Oklahoma because the events and injuries complained of occurred in Cherokee County and Defendants reside in and/or conduct business in Cherokee County. III. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT / OKLAHOMA GTCA NOTICE 9. As a condition precedent to Plaintiff’s Oklahoma tort claims against the County and the City under the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act, 51 O.S. §§ 151 et seq., Plaintiff presented written notice of claim to the County and to the City, and such notice was received on or after May 28, 2025. 10. The County and the City did not approve Plaintiff’s claim within the time allowed by the GTCA and did not provide a written response approving the claim; accordingly, the claim is deemed denied by operation of law. Plaintiff brings this action within the time permitted by the GTCA following denial. 11. All other conditions precedent to Plaintiff’s claims have occurred, have been performed, or have been waived. IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 12. On June 12, 2024, at approximately 5:50 p.m., Plaintiff was stopped and arrested at or near the intersection of South Groat Road and Clear Creek Road in Cherokee County, Oklahoma by officers associated with the Hulbert Police Department, with Cherokee County Sheriff’s Office Officer/District personnel including Carder arriving and participating. 13. Earlier that day, Carder served Plaintiff with a Protective Order. Plaintiff complied with the Protective Order by promptly leaving his residence. 14. As Plaintiff was leaving, a Hulbert Police Department vehicle followed Plaintiff. Approximately one-half mile from Plaintiff’s home, Hulbert Police Department officers stopped Plaintiff without explaining the reason for the stop. 15. When Plaintiff asked why he was being pulled over, officers ordered Plaintiff to exit his truck. Plaintiff complied. A Hulbert officer directed Plaintiff to face the tailgate, then aggressively grabbed Plaintiff, twisted Plaintiff’s arms and hands behind his back, and applied force that caused or worsened nerve damage and injury to Plaintiff’s neck. Officers did not explain why Plaintiff was being arrested at the time force was used. 16. Shortly thereafter, Carder arrived and claimed Plaintiff had violated the Protective Order by allegedly sending a text message to Plaintiff’s wife. 17. While Plaintiff was handcuffed and restrained, Carder demanded that Plaintiff unlock Plaintiff’s cell phone. Carder then searched through Plaintiff’s phone without a warrant and without Plaintiff’s voluntary, informed consent. 18. During the stop and arrest, officers discussed that the Protective Order did not contain a “No Contact” restriction because the relevant checkbox was not marked, and they confirmed this more than once. Despite this, Carder stated, in substance, “This is why the city loses money - because of cops like me. Take him to jail.” 19. Plaintiff was not given an explanation of the charges at the time of arrest and was not advised of rights during the initial encounter. 20. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff suffered physical injury (including neck/nerve injury), pain and suffering, emotional distress, mental anguish, and economic damages including lost wages and out-of-pocket expenses. 21. Upon information and belief, the County and the City maintained policies, practices, and/or customs, and/or failed to adequately train, supervise, and discipline officers, in ways that were a moving force behind the constitutional violations and state-law torts alleged herein, including stops and arrests without adequate probable cause, use of excessive force, and searches of cell phones without a warrant or lawful consent. 22. Plaintiff brings the following claims for relief based on the foregoing facts. V. CAUSES OF ACTION COUNT I – 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Fourth Amendment Unlawful Seizure / False Arrest) (Against Carder and Doe Officers, Individual and Official Capacities) 23. Carder and the Doe Officers acted under color of state law. Defendants unlawfully seized and arrested Plaintiff without probable cause and without lawful justification, in violation of the Fourth Amendment as incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment. COUNT II – 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Fourth Amendment Excessive Force) (Against Doe Officers and Carder, Individual and Official Capacities) 24. Defendants used objectively unreasonable and excessive force during Plaintiff's detention and arrest, including forcefully twisting Plaintiff's arms and hands behind Plaintiff's back and causing neck/nerve injury, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. COUNT III – 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Fourth Amendment Unlawful Search and Seizure of Cell Phone / Compelled Unlocking) (Against Carder, and Does to the extent involved, Individual and Official Capacities). 25. While Plaintiff was restrained, Carder demanded that Plaintiff unlock Plaintiff's phone and searched the contents of Plaintiff's phone without a warrant and without lawful, voluntary consent, violating the Fourth Amendment. COUNT IV – 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Fourteenth Amendment) (Against Carder and Doe Officers, Individual and Official Capacities) 26. To the extent any of the foregoing conduct is analyzed under the Fourteenth Amendment, Defendants deprived Plaintiff of liberty without due process of law and violated rights secured by the United States Constitution. COUNT V – Municipal Liability (Monell) Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Against the County and the City) 27. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 22. Upon information and belief, the County and the City maintained policies, customs, and practices, and/or exhibited deliberate indifference through failures to train, supervise, and discipline officers regarding lawful stops and arrests, use of force, and searches of digital devices. Such policies, customs, and failures were a moving force behind the constitutional violations alleged herein. COUNT VI – False Arrest / False Imprisonment (Oklahoma Law; GTCA) (Against the County and the City, and alternatively against Carder and Doe Officers to the extent required by law). 28. Defendants caused Plaintiff to be restrained and arrested without lawful justification. To the extent Carder and/or the Doe Officers acted within the scope of employment, the County and/or City are liable under the GTCA. To the extent any individual defendant acted outside the scope of employment, Plaintiff pleads such claims alternatively against that individual to the extent permitted by Oklahoma law. COUNT VII – Assault and Battery (Excessive Force) (Oklahoma Law; GTCA) (Against the County and the City, and alternatively against Carder and Doe Officers). 29. Defendants intentionally and unlawfully used physical force against Plaintiff, including forceful grabbing and twisting of Plaintiff’s arms/hands behind Plaintiff’s back, constituting assault and battery under Oklahoma law. Liability is asserted against the County and/or City under the GTCA for acts within scope, and alternatively against individuals for acts outside scope to the extent allowed. COUNT VIII – Negligence; Negligent Hiring/Training/Supervision (Oklahoma Law; GTCA) (Against the County and the City) 30. The County and the City, through their employees and supervisors, owed duties to exercise reasonable care in policing, including training, supervision, and discipline. The County and the City breached those duties, and such breaches were a direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injuries and damages. COUNT IX – Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (Oklahoma Law; Pleaded in the Alternative) (Against the County and the City under GTCA and/or against individuals to the extent outside scope) 31. Defendants’ conduct, including arresting Plaintiff without lawful justification, using excessive force causing injury, and compelling access to and searching Plaintiff’s phone while restrained, was extreme and outrageous and caused Plaintiff severe emotional distress. This claim is pleaded in the alternative consistent with the GTCA and Oklahoma law regarding scope of employment. VI. DAMAGES 32. Plaintiff has suffered damages in an amount in excess of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000), including but not limited to physical injury, pain and suffering, disability and impairment, mental anguish and emotional distress, embarrassment, loss of enjoyment of life, lost wages and loss of earning capacity, and out-of-pocket losses. 33. Plaintiff seeks recovery of costs, interest as allowed by law, and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. 34. Plaintiff further seeks reasonable attorney’s fees to the extent authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and/or other applicable law. 35. Plaintiff seeks punitive damages against Carder and the Doe Officers in their individual capacities to the extent permitted by law based on reckless and/or callous indifference to Plaintiff’s federally protected rights. VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 36. Plaintiff prays for entry of judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants as follows: A. For compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial, in excess of $10,000; B. For punitive damages against individual-capacity Defendants as allowed by law; C. For attorney’s fees and costs as allowed by law; D. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. VIII. JURY DEMAND Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable. Respectfully submitted, Joseph Robert Cunnius By: Brian E. Duke, OBA # 14710 DUKE LAW FIRM, PLLC 133 N. Muskogee, Suite G Tahlequah, OK 74464 [email protected] TEL 918-456-0860