On April 26, 2024, a night at an Ohio bar turned into a frightening confrontation when two off-duty law enforcement officers challenged an African immigrant’s right to be in America, then physically restrained him.
The man was Yonas Bak Reda Ngiel, a commercial truck driver originally from Eritrea. He had lived in the United States for approximately fourteen years and was lawfully present when the encounter unfolded in Hinckley, Ohio.
The officers were Donald Kopchak of the Cleveland Division of Police and Daniel Lajack of the Lake County Narcotics Agency. Both held assignments with federal task forces, giving them connections to powerful national law enforcement agencies.
Kopchak worked with a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives task force, while Lajack served with a Drug Enforcement Administration task force. Neither officer was on duty when the confrontation began inside the bar.
For reasons rooted in their assumptions about Ngiel’s immigration status, the officers demanded identification proving his legal presence. What should have been an ordinary evening became an intimidating encounter involving accusations about his nationality and citizenship.
Ngiel had committed no crime that justified the confrontation. Nevertheless, the officers continued questioning him. When he attempted to leave, Kopchak physically restrained him and held him on the ground outside the establishment.
By the time Brunswick police officers arrived, the situation had already escalated. Body camera footage captured the troubling aftermath, including explanations from the off-duty officers and desperate protests from the man they had detained.
One officer repeatedly insisted that Ngiel was not from the country. An arriving officer pushed for a different explanation, asking what had actually happened rather than accepting the man’s perceived foreign origin as justification.
Ngiel protested that he was legally in the United States. He also complained that the men had taken his belongings and prevented him from calling police, raising further questions about how the confrontation had unfolded.
The recordings exposed a disturbing contradiction. Two experienced law enforcement professionals had taken aggressive action against someone based on assumptions about his immigration status, despite lacking a legitimate criminal basis for restraining him.
The incident eventually attracted federal attention. The FBI assumed responsibility for investigating the encounter, and the matter was referred to the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Michigan to avoid conflicts.
Federal prosecutors ultimately declined to pursue civil rights charges. That decision did not end the matter, however. Authorities referred the case to the Medina County Prosecutor’s Office, where investigators presented their evidence to a grand jury.
On August 26, 2025, Kopchak was indicted on four criminal charges: two third-degree felony abduction counts, one fifth-degree felony ethnic intimidation count, and one first-degree misdemeanor assault count arising from the confrontation with Ngiel.
The case proceeded to a jury trial beginning March 23, 2026, in Medina County Common Pleas Court. Prosecutors sought to establish that Kopchak’s actions crossed the boundary between lawful police conduct and criminal abuse.
On March 30, 2026, the jury returned its verdict. Kopchak was found guilty on all four counts, transforming a confrontation outside a neighborhood bar into a serious criminal conviction against an experienced police officer.
The next critical moment arrived June 15, 2026, when Kopchak appeared before Judge Joyce Kimbler for sentencing. The courtroom heard sharply different arguments about how severely the former officer should be punished.
Prosecutor Salisbury emphasized the significant physical and psychological impact on Ngiel. He described the case as deeply consequential for the community and argued that Kopchak had failed to fully acknowledge his wrongdoing.
One detail particularly struck the prosecution. Despite everything Ngiel had endured, the victim reportedly continued expressing that he did not want anything terrible to happen to the two officers involved in the confrontation.
The prosecution argued that ethnic intimidation had been unmistakably established. Salisbury urged the judge to impose a prison sentence, maintaining that the seriousness of Kopchak’s conduct warranted punishment beyond community supervision.
Defense attorney Kevin Spellacy presented a different portrait of the defendant. He emphasized Kopchak’s history as a father, coach, and police officer, pointing to supportive letters describing his character and community contributions.
The defense also noted that Kopchak had already spent eighty-two days in jail and possessed a low assessed risk of reoffending. Spellacy argued that probation would provide sufficient punishment without further incarceration.
When offered an opportunity to speak, Kopchak insisted he had been honest during his trial testimony. He described his disbelief at finding himself awaiting criminal sentencing and referenced the positive character letters submitted.
Judge Kimbler acknowledged receiving the defense memorandum and supportive letters. But she immediately identified what she considered a crucial omission: those letters focused on Kopchak’s reputation rather than the suffering caused to Ngiel.
The judge explained that her responsibility was not simply determining whether Kopchak had been a good person throughout his life. Instead, she needed to evaluate his conduct and the consequences for the victim.
After considering Ohio’s statutory sentencing factors and the presentence investigation, Kimbler announced eighteen months in prison for each abduction conviction, ten months for ethnic intimidation, and 120 days in jail for assault.
All four terms were ordered to run concurrently, meaning they would be served simultaneously rather than consecutively. Consequently, Kopchak’s total prison sentence amounted to eighteen months, despite the separate punishments assigned to each offense.
The judge also addressed post-release supervision, explaining that Kopchak would face mandatory supervision after imprisonment on the abduction counts. Violating its conditions could expose him to additional prison time under Ohio law.
Kopchak retained the right to challenge both his convictions and sentence. After the court explained those rights, he indicated that he intended to appeal, setting the stage for another legal confrontation.
His defense attorney then raised a technical but important issue: whether the two abduction convictions should merge under Ohio law because they potentially arose from overlapping conduct during the same incident.
Prosecutors disputed that interpretation, arguing that removing Ngiel and restraining his liberty involved distinct actions. Judge Kimbler declined to merge the convictions, indicating that the question could be examined during an appeal.
The defense also requested that Kopchak remain free while his appeal proceeded. Attorney Lewis Groob argued that his client presented little flight risk and that reasonable legal grounds existed for challenging the proceedings.
Judge Kimbler rejected the oral request. She referenced earlier motions suggesting Kopchak preferred imprisonment over remaining in Medina County Jail and directed that he be transferred into the state correctional system.
The ruling appeared to close the sentencing hearing with Kopchak headed toward prison. Yet the defense continued pursuing relief, shifting its request from the trial courtroom to Ohio’s Ninth District Court of Appeals.
On June 17, 2026, Kopchak filed his notice of appeal. Nine days later, he formally requested that the appellate court suspend enforcement of his sentence and permit his release on bond while proceedings continued.
On July 27, 2026, the appellate court granted the requested stay and reinstated his bond. The decision did not overturn his convictions, but it allowed him to remain outside prison while his appeal advanced.
According to the account available when the original episode was prepared, Kopchak remained free on bond with his appeal pending. The ultimate appellate outcome was not established in that account and should not be presumed.
The broader controversy reaches beyond one officer’s sentence. Ngiel’s experience illustrates the profound harm caused when law enforcement authority is exercised against an individual based on assumptions about ethnicity, nationality, or immigration status.
The jury’s verdict established criminal responsibility for Kopchak’s conduct, while the appellate process preserved his opportunity to challenge the judgment. Both developments reflect different but essential protections within the American justice system.
For Ngiel, the consequences began with a humiliating confrontation outside a bar. For Kopchak, they developed into felony convictions, a prison sentence, and a continuing legal battle over his conduct and punishment.
The case ultimately raises a fundamental question about the badge and the authority it represents. When officers violate the rights they are entrusted to protect, accountability becomes essential to maintaining public confidence in policing.
