A federal lawsuit alleges that law enforcement officers facilitated the unauthorized entry into a private residence and allowed the removal of valuable property without legal authority, raising questions about the protection of constitutional rights in domestic disputes. The complaint was filed by Michael Peter Kopchick Jr. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina on April 2, 2026, naming the Town of Holly Ridge, Officer Brandon Lee Twomey, Officer Brown, and Stephanie Christine Kopchick as defendants.
According to court documents, Michael Peter Kopchick Jr., who identifies himself as the sole lawful tenant at 348 Dwight Street in Holly Ridge, claims that on or about September 26-27, 2025, law enforcement officers entered his home without a warrant or consent. The filing states that Stephanie Christine Kopchick—who is not listed on the lease and had reportedly relocated out of state—contacted police to assist her in entering the residence to retrieve property while Mr. Kopchick was absent.
The complaint outlines that Officers Twomey and Brown responded to the scene under what was described as a “civil standby.” However, it is alleged that neither officer possessed a warrant or court order authorizing entry into the home. Mr. Kopchick asserts that he did not provide consent for anyone to enter his residence and that no exigent circumstances existed at the time.
The lawsuit further details how police requested a neighbor to provide an access code to Mr. Kopchick’s residence after initially being refused. The neighbor ultimately complied due to “police presence and authority,” according to the filing. The document claims: “The code would not have been disclosed absent police involvement.” Using this code, Officer Twomey entered the home while Officer Brown remained present outside.
While inside the residence, Stephanie Christine Kopchick allegedly removed property with Officer Twomey present but not intervening. The complaint quotes Officer Twomey as saying: “It’s y’all’s house… take whatever you want.” It also states that officers failed to verify ownership or require documentation before allowing items to be taken from the premises.
Mr. Kopchick reports that cash, precious metals, and other valuables were removed from his home during this incident. He estimates the value of these items exceeds $33,128.24. After discovering what had occurred through video footage captured by his Ring camera system, Mr. Kopchick reported the incident to local authorities.
The suit alleges that when he raised concerns with supervisory staff at Holly Ridge Police Department about possible misconduct by responding officers, he was told they “did nothing wrong.” This response is characterized in court filings as official approval and ratification of their conduct by town officials.
Mr. Kopchick also claims he submitted formal complaints seeking an internal affairs investigation and requested preservation of body camera footage along with other records related to the incident. According to him, key evidence—including body camera recordings—was not produced by town officials or police representatives.
In addition to Fourth Amendment unreasonable search and seizure claims under Title 42 U.S.C § 1983, Mr. Kopchick asserts violations of due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment; failure by officers to intervene; municipal liability based on alleged policies or customs permitting unconstitutional conduct during civil standbys; trespass; conversion; and civil conspiracy under state law.
The plaintiff argues that established law prohibits law enforcement from entering homes without warrants or valid consent except in emergencies—and further bars them from using their authority to assist private parties in seizing property absent legal process.
As relief for these alleged violations, Mr. Kopchick seeks compensatory damages no less than $33,128.24 for loss of property along with punitive damages against individual defendants for their roles in facilitating or failing to prevent what he describes as an unlawful entry and taking. He also requests reimbursement for litigation costs and attorney’s fees pursuant to federal statute.
Michael Peter Kopchick Jr., representing himself as pro se plaintiff in this matter (Case No.: 7:26-cv-00173-M), demands trial by jury on all issues so triable.
Source: 726cv00173_Kopchick_Jr_v_Town_of_Holly_Ridge_Complaint_Eastern_District_North_Carolina.pdf
