Introduction

In Ryan Gould v. Bethany Guerriero (Eleventh Circuit, May 5, 2025), the Court of Appeals addressed two central constitutional questions arising from a poolside confrontation: (1) whether pointing a firearm at a non-threatening individual who repeatedly disobeyed police commands constitutes excessive force under the Fourth Amendment; and (2) whether detaining that individual amounted to a false arrest. Plaintiff‐appellant Ryan Gould sued Officer Bethany Guerriero under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Florida law, alleging that she used excessive force by drawing her service weapon on him and effectuated a false arrest when she handcuffed him. The district court granted summary judgment for Officer Guerriero on all claims, ruling in the alternative that she was shielded by qualified immunity (federal claims) and sovereign immunity (state-law claims). Gould appealed.

This commentary examines the factual background, the Eleventh Circuit’s legal analysis, the precedents it relied on, and the broader impact of the decision on police use‐of‐force and arrest law.

Summary of the Judgment

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Officer Guerriero. It held:

• Excessive Force: Assuming arguendo that drawing a firearm on Gould could constitute excessive force, Officer Guerriero was entitled to qualified immunity because it was not “clearly established” that such conduct was unlawful under the specific facts. Gould had ignored at least three clear commands—keeping his hands out of his pockets and dropping a phone—while the officer was securing a reported crime scene involving a concealed firearm.
• False Arrest: Officer Guerriero had probable cause, and at minimum “arguable probable cause,” to arrest Gould for obstruction under Florida Statute § 843.02. His repeated disobedience impeded her lawful investigation of a 911 report involving a gun.
• State‐Law Claim: Because probable cause for the arrest negated any inference of “bad faith or malicious purpose,” Florida’s sovereign immunity statute barred the false‐arrest tort claim.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

• Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989): Established the objective‐reasonableness standard for excessive‐force claims, focusing on “severity of the crime,” “immediate threat,” and whether the suspect is resisting.
• Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007): Courts must view video evidence “in the light depicted by the videotape” when deciding summary judgment on excessive‐force claims.
• Croom v. Balkwill, 645 F.3d 1240 (11th Cir. 2011): Noted that pointing a firearm at an unarmed, nonthreatening person “objectively poses no threat” and can sustain an excessive‐force claim—but recognized split‐second decision making.
• Saunders v. Duke, 766 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 2014): Police “denied qualified immunity” if they use “gratuitous and excessive force” on a suspect “under control, not resisting, and obeying commands.”
• Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009): Refined the two‐prong qualified immunity test (violation of a constitutional right and violation of “clearly established” law) and allowed courts to decide the prongs in any order.
• District of Columbia v. Wesby, 583 U.S. 48 (2018): Probable cause need only be a “substantial chance of criminal activity,” not a “high bar.”
• Skop v. City of Atlanta, 485 F.3d 1130 (11th Cir. 2007): Defined “arguable probable cause” under § 1983 and explained that it suffices for qualified immunity if a reasonable officer could think an arrest lawful.
• Baxter v. Roberts, 54 F.4th 1241 (11th Cir. 2022): Interpreted Florida Statute § 843.02’s elements—(1) lawful duty and (2) obstruction by words or conduct.

2. Legal Reasoning

The court’s analysis broke down into two main branches:

• Qualified Immunity (Excessive Force)
  • The Eleventh Circuit assumed, without deciding, that pointing a gun at someone can be excessive force. But to defeat qualified immunity, Gould had to show that “every reasonable officer” would have known that drawing a gun under these facts was unconstitutional. He could not. Gould had repeatedly disobeyed clear commands—reach into your pockets, keep your hands out, drop the phone—while still at a crime scene where a gun had been reported. Under Eleventh Circuit precedent, officers facing uncertain, split‐second decisions during a weapons‐related conflict are entitled to immunity unless prior cases place the precise conduct “beyond debate.” Here, no case held that drawing a gun at a noncompliant individual during a live gun‐investigation was “plainly incompetent” or “knowingly unlawful.”
• Probable Cause & False Arrest
  • Under the Fourth Amendment, an arrest without probable cause is an unreasonable seizure. Florida Statute § 843.02 criminalizes “resisting, obstructing, or opposing” an officer in the lawful execution of duty.
  • Officer Guerriero was responding to dual 911 calls reporting: (a) a man threatened Gould with a concealed weapon, (b) Gould was “harassing” another swimmer. When she encountered Gould, he disobeyed multiple orders to keep hands visible and to drop an object. A reasonable officer could conclude there was at least a “substantial chance” that Gould was obstructing the investigation.
  • Because arguable probable cause suffices for qualified immunity, the court held that his detention did not violate any “clearly established” constitutional right.
• Sovereign Immunity (Florida Law)
  • Florida bars personal‐capacity tort claims against officers acting within the scope of duty absent “bad faith” or “malicious purpose.” Proven probable cause to arrest is an “absolute bar” to false‐arrest claims. Gould’s arrest was supported by probable cause, so sovereign immunity applied.

3. Impact

This decision underscores two principles vital to law enforcement and civil‐rights litigation:

• Qualified Immunity’s High Threshold: Officers defending split‐second decisions during investigations—especially where weapons are reported—will be shielded unless a prior case with virtually identical facts put them on “fair warning” that their conduct was unconstitutional.
• Probable Cause for Obstruction: Disobedience of valid police commands at a crime scene can create probable (or arguable probable) cause for arrest under § 843.02. Future plaintiffs challenging false‐arrest claims will face an uphill battle unless they can show complete absence of any reasonable basis for detention.
• Video Evidence: Scott v. Harris remains binding—when bodycam footage is undisputed, courts view facts “in the light depicted by the videotape,” limiting plaintiffs’ ability to create genuine disputes at summary judgment.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Qualified Immunity: A legal shield protecting public officials from lawsuits over constitutional violations unless they violate a “clearly established” right that any reasonable official would know.
• Excessive Force (Fourth Amendment): Police may use only objectively reasonable force under the circumstances. Graham v. Connor lists factors—severity of the crime, immediate threat, and resistance or flight.
• Probable Cause vs. Arguable Probable Cause:
  • Probable cause—enough facts to lead a reasonable person to believe a crime occurred.
  • Arguable probable cause—enough facts that a reasonable officer could conclude there was probable cause, even if a court later disagrees.
• Obstruction of Justice (Fla. Stat. § 843.02): Willfully resisting or obstructing an officer performing a legal duty, even through words, can constitute a misdemeanor.
• Sovereign Immunity (Florida): State officers cannot be sued personally for torts committed in the scope of duty unless they act in bad faith or with malice.
• Bodycam/Surveillance Evidence: When video clearly shows what happened, courts give it priority over conflicting sworn statements at summary judgment.

Conclusion

Gould v. Guerriero reaffirms that qualified immunity will protect officers who draw weapons to enforce compliance in circumstances involving a reported firearm, absent a prior decision leaving no doubt that such conduct was unconstitutional. It also clarifies that repeated refusal to follow lawful police commands at an active crime scene can supply probable cause for an obstruction‐based arrest, foreclosing false‐arrest claims and invoking sovereign immunity under Florida law. For civil‐rights plaintiffs, the ruling highlights the importance of distinguishing truly “compliant” bystanders from individuals who defy multiple police orders during a live weapons investigation.