A federal jury on Monday found that a Clinton Township cop used excessive force during a non-emergency encounter, awarding $4 million in compensatory damages and $50,000 in punitive damages to Daniel Reiff, who was left blind in one eye after being punched in the face by the officer.
The verdict came in a civil rights lawsuit against Clinton Township Police Officer Broc Setty, whom jurors found responsible for using unjustified force during a response to a call about a “suspicious person.”
Testimony showed the call was not an emergency.
According to evidence at trial, Reiff began running when Setty approached him. While pursuing him on foot, Setty yelled, “Whoo, baby, I’m gonna tase you, bro,” before catching up and punching Reiff in the face. The blow ruptured Reiff’s eyeball and caused multiple facial fractures.
Medical witnesses testified that the impact caused catastrophic damage to Reiff’s eye, describing it “squished like a grape” and compressed beyond repair. Doctors removed his eyeball. One witness said Reiff underwent numerous surgeries and now has permanent metal hardware and screws in his face. He has also been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.
A photograph submitted in the case shows Reiff with severe trauma to one eye, which appears blood-filled with no iris or pupil showing, surrounded by bruising and discoloration across his face.
Throughout the case, Setty and his defense argued that Reiff’s history of mental health struggles and substance use diminished the value of his claims. Defense counsel maintained that a jury would never return a significant verdict for “a person like Dan” and offered $50,000 to settle the case before trial.
“This verdict is about accountability and equal justice under the law,” Michael Jones, Reiff’s trial attorney, said. “This was a non-emergency call. There was no justification for what happened. The jury made clear that no one is disposable, no one is beneath the Constitution, and police officers do not get a free pass to use violence out of anger or frustration.”
Jon Marko, founder of Marko Law, which represented Reiff, said the defense strategy backfired.
“The defense told us a jury would never value Daniel Reiff’s life or his injuries because of who he is,” Marko said. “Today, eight citizens said otherwise. They sent a powerful message that constitutional rights belong to everyone — and that when an officer crosses the line, the community will hold them accountable.”
Reiff’s attorneys said the case was never about money, but about the constitutional limits on police force. The verdict, they said, provides long-overdue accountability for an encounter that permanently altered Reiff’s life.
Reiff continues to live with lasting physical injuries and psychological trauma stemming from the incident.