April Unger v. City of Stillwell
What's This Case About?
Let’s be real for a second: a woman gets tased six or seven times while lying motionless on her boyfriend’s front porch—after being pulled over for not fully stopping at a stop sign—and the cops then bust into the house without a warrant, all because one officer radioed “I’m in trouble” like he was starring in his own action movie. This isn’t a dystopian cop show. This is what allegedly went down in Stilwell, Oklahoma, population just under 4,000, where a routine traffic stop turned into a full-blown constitutional dumpster fire.
Meet April Unger and Robert White—two regular people caught in what can only be described as a law enforcement overreaction of epic proportions. April, driving her 2015 Nissan Altima (which, let’s be honest, probably doesn’t even have Apple CarPlay), allegedly failed to come to a complete stop at a stop sign. She also, according to the Cherokee Nation’s court records, was later cited for unsafe lane use, transporting an open container of alcohol, and not having proof of insurance. Minor stuff, right? The kind of citations that usually end with a fine and an eye roll. But not in Stilwell. Not on October 30, 2024. That day, Officer Jacob Martin saw a misdemeanor and treated it like a hostage negotiation.
April, perhaps wisely deciding she didn’t want to stand in the street arguing with a cop while tipsy, got out of the car and walked into Robert White’s house—her boyfriend’s home at 158 N. 8th Street. Now, this is where things go off the rails faster than a shopping cart down a hill. Instead of, say, calling it in or waiting for backup like a normal human, Officer Martin radios in a “10-23”—code for “officer in trouble”—which instantly escalates the situation from “routine traffic stop” to “potential life-or-death emergency.” Backup arrives fast—Officer Kevin Fletcher shows up, and instead of, you know, knocking or calling for April to come back out, they follow her into the house. No warrant. No consent. No emergency. Just two cops barging into a private residence because someone didn’t stop all the way at a stop sign.
And then—oh, then—the tasing begins. As April walks through the door, Martin deploys his Taser. She falls, incapacitated, across the threshold. But that’s not enough. Even though she’s on the ground, not moving, not resisting, clearly not a threat, Martin tases her again. And again. And again. Six. Or maybe seven. Times. Let that sink in. The man used a Taser more times than most people check their phones in a minute—on a woman who was already down. The filing says she was “rendered incapable of resisting,” which is lawyer-speak for “she was literally helpless and they kept shocking her anyway.” At this point, someone—probably realizing this was no longer policing but outright assault—called EMS. And not just any EMS call: a “code 1x1,” which means emergency transport. April was rushed to the hospital with taser burns, bruising, nerve damage, and emotional trauma. All for a traffic stop.
Meanwhile, Robert White—whose house this was, remember—just wanted to chill at home. Instead, he got a warrantless home invasion by the local police department. His front door became a crime scene for a misdemeanor traffic stop. The filing cites Kentucky v. King, a Supreme Court case about when cops can enter a home without a warrant, and the answer is: only if there’s an emergency—like someone’s about to flush drugs or hurt someone. Neither applied here. April wasn’t a violent felon. She wasn’t armed. She wasn’t even running. She was just… walking into her boyfriend’s house. So yeah, Robert’s suing too—not for getting tased, but for having his constitutional rights stomped on like a cigarette butt on a sidewalk.
Now, why are they in court? Because this wasn’t just a bad day for policing—it’s a laundry list of alleged civil rights violations. First up: excessive force. The plaintiffs argue that tasing someone seven times while they’re prone and helpless is, shocker, unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has said force must be “objectively reasonable,” and this? This was objectively unreasonable. The filing name-drops Graham v. Connor, the case that set the standard for police force, and basically says: “Hey, judges, this was so far outside the line that even a rookie cop should’ve known it was wrong.” Then there’s assault and battery—yes, the same terms you hear in bar fight cases—now being applied to police officers, with the city potentially on the hook because, hey, when your employees do something illegal, you might have to pay for it. That’s called respondeat superior, which is Latin for “you hired them, you deal with the fallout.”
Then it gets into the real legal weeds. Chad Smith, the police chief, is being sued not because he tased anyone (he didn’t), but because he didn’t do his job. The claim? He failed to train his officers on basic constitutional limits—like, maybe don’t break into houses for traffic stops or tase people into oblivion. That’s supervisory liability, and it’s a big deal. You can’t just hire cops and hand them Tasers and guns and say, “Figure it out.” There’s a duty to train. And when you don’t, and your officers go full Rambo on a woman for unsafe lane use, you might be on the hook.
And finally, the city itself is being sued under something called Monell liability—a legal doctrine that says a city can be responsible if its policies lead to constitutional violations. In this case? The plaintiffs argue that the department’s habit of calling minor stops “10-23” (officer in trouble) basically trains officers to treat every traffic stop like a life-or-death situation. That policy—or lack of de-escalation training—became the “moving force” behind the violation. So the city isn’t just being sued for what the officers did, but for the culture that allowed it to happen.
As for what they want? The filing doesn’t specify a dollar amount—just “compensatory damages” for April’s injuries and Robert’s violated rights, plus punitive damages against the officers and chief. Punitive damages aren’t about making the victim whole—they’re about punishing the wrongdoer. And when you tase a woman seven times for not stopping at a stop sign, punishment feels… warranted. Is $50,000 a lot? In this context? It’s a rounding error. The medical bills, the trauma, the sheer violation of dignity—this isn’t about money. It’s about accountability.
Our take? The most absurd part isn’t even the tasing. It’s the 10-23 call. Let that marinate. An officer sees a woman walk into a house after a traffic stop—something people do all the time—and instead of saying, “I’ll wait,” he radios “I’m in trouble.” That single phrase changed everything. It turned a minor citation into a SWAT-level response. It justified the forced entry. It escalated a situation that didn’t need escalating. And it shows how easily the language of fear can be weaponized—by cops, against citizens, for no good reason.
We’re not rooting for chaos. We’re not rooting for cops to be afraid to do their jobs. But we are rooting for sanity. For proportionality. For the idea that a traffic stop shouldn’t end with someone in the ER because they didn’t come to a complete stop. This case isn’t just about April Unger or Robert White. It’s about what happens when power isn’t checked. When fear overrides facts. When a Taser becomes a tool of punishment, not protection.
And honestly? If this were a movie, no one would believe it. Too over-the-top. Too ridiculous. Too much. But it’s not fiction. It’s a petition filed in Adair County, Oklahoma. And that’s the most terrifying part of all.
(We’re entertainers, not lawyers. But even we know this stinks to high heaven.)
Case Overview
-
April Unger
individual
Rep: John C. Young, Attorney at Law
-
Robert White
individual
Rep: John C. Young, Attorney at Law
- City of Stillwell business
- Chad Smith individual
- Jacob Martin individual
- Kevin Fletcher individual
| # | Cause of Action | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Excessive Force | Against Defendants Martin and Fletcher |
| 2 | Assault and Battery | Against Defendant City of Stilwell |
| 3 | Supervisory Liability | Against Defendant Chad Smith |
| 4 | Municipal Liability | Against Defendant City of Stilwell |
| 5 | Attorney's Fees and Costs | Against All Defendants |