Victory for Gardens officer who held unarmed man at gunpoint in viral 'unhinged cop' video
WEST PALM BEACH — A federal appeals court has dismissed a civil-rights lawsuit against a Palm Beach Gardens police officer whose viral arrest of an unarmed man drew national scrutiny, upholding a lower court's ruling and marking the latest in a series of victories for officer Bethany Guerriero.
In a 13-page opinion, the panel of judges said Guerriero was not in the wrong during her May 2023 encounter with Ryan Gould, a then-resident of Palm Beach Gardens' Sabal Ridge apartment complex. Gould called 911 to report a neighbor who threatened him with a gun, only to be arrested at gunpoint himself when Guerriero mistook him for the suspect.
Surveillance-camera footage in the apartment complex's parking lot showed Guerriero ordering Gould to the ground with her weapon drawn, ignoring his insistence that he was the victim. The video, posted to YouTube under the title 'Innocent Man Arrested by Unhinged Cop,' went viral. The city fired Guerriero in January 2024.
Gould sued Guerriero soon afterward, accusing her of excessive force and false imprisonment. Guerriero, a 20-year veteran with the department, invoked qualified immunity, which, under Florida law, shields officers from personal liability unless they act with 'malicious purpose or in a manner exhibiting wanton and willful disregard.'
U.S. District Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks dismissed the lawsuit in August, ruling that Guerriero did have probable cause to arrest Gould, and that her actions did not violate clearly established law. He found that the body-camera footage supported her version of events, including Gould's failure to follow commands.
'Any reasonable officer who was called to a scene due to a man brandishing a concealed weapon would have been aware of the danger of a man reaching into his pocket after being instructed not to,' Middlebrooks wrote.
The appellate court agreed, concluding that Guerriero's decision to draw her firearm and arrest Gould was constitutional, given the conflicting 911 calls and uncertainty about who was armed.
'It is not clearly established law that drawing a gun on an unidentified individual thrice disobeying the reasonable commands of an officer … constitutes excessive force,' the court wrote. The judges noted that Guerriero repeatedly told Gould to keep his hands out of his pockets and to drop his phone, and only escalated when he failed to comply.
The court's decision, finalized with a mandate on June 3, effectively ends Gould's federal lawsuit, barring an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Though Guerriero was initially fired for violating department policy — including policies on conduct, courtesy and response to resistance — she was reinstated months later through arbitration. The arbitrator ruled that her conduct warranted serious discipline, but not termination, and she returned to duty without back pay.
In his ruling, arbitrator Richard J. Miller found that Guerriero's behavior — including escalating the encounter with verbal taunts, drawing her weapon and violating several department policies — was serious enough to warrant discipline but not dismissal. He noted Guerriero admitted to violating policies on response to resistance, conduct unbecoming and professional courtesy.
Still, the arbitrator rejected the city's argument that her actions and past record— three prior disciplinary incidents over her two-decade career — justified ending her employment. He emphasized the principles of progressive discipline and determined that a suspension without pay was more appropriate.
'Termination is too severe a punishment in this case,' Miller wrote. 'This award gives Officer Guerriero another chance and, at the same time, does not become a financial liability to the city.'
City officials had maintained that Guerriero's conduct undermined public trust and departmental credibility. The incident drew more than 60,000 views online and sparked hundreds of calls and emails to the police department, many of them critical.
Gould's attorney, Eric Rice, did not return a request for comment.
Hannah Phillips is a journalist covering public safety and criminal justice at The Palm Beach Post. You can reach her at hphillips@pbpost.com.
This article originally appeared on Palm Beach Post: Lawsuit dismissed against Florida officer in "unhinged cop' video
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Lori Daybell Trial Day 5: Prosecutors rest case, 'Doomsday Mom' not testifying
The Brief Lori Vallow Daybell's second Arizona trial continues on June 11 in Phoenix. On Tuesday, a number of people took the stand, including a police detective from Rexburg, Idaho. Daybell is accused of conspiring with her late brother in the attempted murder of Brandon Boudreaux. PHOENIX - The second and final Arizona trial of Lori Vallow Daybell, the so-called "Doomsday Mom," resumed in a Phoenix courtroom on Tuesday morning. The backstory This is the second and final Arizona trial for Daybell. In this case, she is accused of conspiring with her brother, Alex Cox, in the attempted murder of Brandon Boudreaux, who once married Daybell's niece. Boudreaux was shot at outside his Gilbert home in October 2019. While Boudreaux was not hit, the incident is linked to a series of deadly events in Idaho, including the murders of Daybell's two children, Joshua "JJ" Vallow and Chad Daybell's first wife, Tammy. In April 2025, Daybell was also found guilty of plotting the fatal shooting of her fourth husband, Charles Vallow, in Chandler. Just like she did in her first Arizona trial, Daybell is representing herself. The trial kicked off on Thursday, June 5 with both sides presenting their opening statements. During Daybell's opening statement, multiple objections were made by the prosecuting attorney, Treena Kay. A day later, Daybell was briefly removed from the courtroom after an intense exchange with the presiding judge. What Happened Yesterday On June 10, Daybell continued her cross-examination of Gilbert Police Officer Ryan Pillar, who also testified on June 9. Pillar is the case agent who investigated the shooting at Brandon Boudreaux's home on Oct. 2, 2019. During Vallow Daybell's cross-examination, she questioned Gilbert's lack of testing to determine the type of gun used, why Boudreaux's Tesla vehicle was not kept in evidence, and the trajectory of the shooting. Prosecuting attorney Treena Kay later re-directed testimony to argument that evidence showed a clear shooting from a Jeep Wrangler that was allegedly driven by Cox, who died in December 2019. Later on, Lieutenant Ray Hermosillo from Rexburg, Idaho took the stand. Lt. Hermosillo was one of the detectives on the case against Lori and Chad Daybell, a crucial part of the investigation leading to the discovery of the remains of Joshua "JJ" Vallow and Tylee Ryan on Chad Daybell's property in June 2020. Daybell did not choose to cross-examine Hermosillo. During Tuesday's proceedings, we also saw photos of rifles discovered in Alex Cox's garage at his Rexburg apartment. In Other News... On the morning of June 11, we obtained legal documents related to a motion that Daybell filed that seeks the recusal of Judges Jennifer Green and Justin Beresky. Per the legal documents, a judge has dismissed Daybell's motion, stating that the motion can't be filed after a hearing or trial began. What you can do You can watch live coverage of the trial on FOX 10's YouTube channel.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
What CFOs should take away from the Ames v. Ohio decision
This story was originally published on To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily newsletter. In a landmark decision on June 5, the U.S. Supreme Court in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services struck down the Sixth Circuit's 'background circumstances' rule, leveling the playing field for Title VII discrimination claims by now allowing all employees — regardless of their majority or minority status — to face the same evidentiary standard. For CFOs, this ruling signals heightened litigation risks and a need to consult with human resource leaders about hiring practices and potentially politically driven narratives being woven into corporate goals and messaging. In this collaboration, it's not just about a need for robust compliance strategies, but also an opportunity to assess the politicization of leadership and the organization's workforce. As companies face potential increases in lawsuits from majority-group employees who may have fallen victim to race, gender or sexual orientation based-discrimination in the name of a corporate DEI policy, financial leaders may have to reassess budgets for legal reserves, audit the contents of DEI programs in risk mitigation efforts and conduct workforce and pay equity audits to safeguard against costly claims and reputational damage. The case goes as follows: Marlean Ames was hired in 2004 by the Ohio Department of Youth Services as an executive secretary and was later promoted to a program administrator. In 2019, she applied for a management position but was denied in favor of a lesbian woman. Shortly after, she was demoted to her original secretarial role with a pay cut, and a gay man was hired as program administrator. In response, Ames filed a lawsuit under Title VII, alleging discrimination based on her sexual orientation. The issue at hand with Ames, who is a heterosexual white woman, was whether Title VII plaintiffs who are members of majority groups (e.g., heterosexuals and white people) must meet a heightened evidentiary standard, specifically the Sixth Circuit's 'background circumstances' rule, to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the McDonnell Douglas legal framework. After multiple appeals to decisions requiring Ames to show a higher level of evidentiary standard, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with Ames and has now unanimously agreed to repeal this extra burden of proof from what previously was determined as a 'majority' status. Legal experts now say this opens the door to new risk for CFOs. 'In the Ames case, the Supreme Court unanimously held that the legal standard for an employee to bring a discrimination lawsuit against their employer is the same, whether or not the employee is a member of a majority group or in the minority,' said Julie Levinson Werner, partner and vice chair of employment at Lowenstein Sandler. 'Previously, many courts around the country held that majority group plaintiffs, such as white men, had to also show 'background circumstances' that the employer was the unusual employer that discriminated against the majority,' Werner continued. 'Now, based upon the Court's decision, there is no longer the concept of a 'reverse discrimination' case, and any employee can sue their employer if they believe they have been subject to discrimination based upon their race, gender, ethnicity, etc.' Jasmine Ahmed, who has held multiple roles in global financial leadership and now provides fractional CFO services, said that, regardless of guidance, finance teams who are unintentionally diverse, in her experience, have always performed better. However, she says the politicization of the issue around DEI has drawn attention away from addressing challenges and into an attack on merit. Having a merit-based professional approach that comes with hard work and grit, she says, are core fundamentals of working and growing careers in corporate finance. 'If you ask any hiring manager, 'If you had complete autonomy, what would you want?' it doesn't matter if it's in finance or not — the answer is always the same,' Ahmed said. 'I've never met anyone who says, 'I want to hire someone underqualified.' What do we hear instead? 'I want the best person for the job' because when the best person does the job, life is easier.' Ahmed said this is a core component of finding talent in finance, and using merit as an indicator of talent shouldn't be a political issue. 'That basic idea isn't political,' she said, 'it's rooted in qualifications, skills, experience and mindset. Those are the components of merit.' Ahmed said finance leaders can take steps to proactively work against ideas of race or sexuality playing a role in growth at their organizations by making sure merit and skill sets are the groundwork for talent evaluation. 'If you look at my track record, go research who's been on my teams, you'll see a pattern,' Ahmed said. 'Not only were they high-performing, they were also diverse. But that wasn't by design. It came from a culture that promotes merit.' She said she rejected traditional hiring tactics she saw in her career as part of this strategy. 'What was different [with my teams] is I didn't allow nepotism,' she said. 'I made talent development a priority for everyone. It wasn't just about performance, it was about developing people and holding managers accountable for doing the same. When you do that, you naturally build a strong, diverse bench.' When asked if she's ever seen a DEI policy in her experience that wasn't about box checking or politics, Ahmed candidly explained that she has not. 'Unfortunately, no,' she said. 'Around the time of COVID and Black Lives Matter, DEI was the hot topic. What did we do? We started filling roles with either African Americans or white women, and at the time, I thought, hold on, DEI isn't about checking a box or meeting quotas.' She went on to explain how the narrative around DEI in the CFO community is now being tackled as a labor issue, a challenge that has been talked about for years. 'I go to conferences and hear the same thing: 'Talent is our big issue.' And I ask, 'What are you doing about it?' We've been talking about the problem for years, but we don't take action.' For those who are building careers around the industry of DEI policies and their incorporation into the workforce, the court's ruling creates a new challenge. However, for Sheryl Daija, CEO of BRIDGE, a DEI and action-oriented, member-driven 501c6 trade group for the global marketing industry, the ruling is a portrayal of 'civil rights protections as preferential treatment.' 'By eliminating the 'background circumstances' standard, the Court has made it easier for majority-group plaintiffs to bring discrimination claims without addressing the ongoing structural barriers that underrepresented communities continue to face,' said Daija. 'The concurrence by Justices [Clarence] Thomas and [Neil] Gorsuch reveals the deeper motive: a sustained campaign to discredit DEI.' Daija went on to connect the language used by the justices in the concurring opinion to a political narrative against DEI policies. 'Their language [that is] citing briefs that call DEI an 'obsession' that causes 'overt discrimination' against majority groups signals hostility toward the very initiatives designed to correct long-standing inequities,' she said. Ahmed said organizations will likely follow one of two paths. 'One will ignore these issues, avoid the politics and take no real action, and they'll be blindsided,' she said. 'Their risk profile will go up, their teams will underperform, their innovation will stall.' She said the second group will take a more strategic approach and be much better off. 'They'll focus on solving the root problem, building strong, inclusive and high-performing talent for the future. If you solve for that, many of the risks and challenges will work themselves out over time.' Though she said this is seldom done in organizations she's familiar with, decisions like this — legal catalysts that come with a potential risk to the organizational growth projections — are sometimes what's needed to kick things into gear in a new direction. 'Culture is the hardest thing to change,' she said. 'I always tell clients, transformation is simple if you get the mindset right. With the right culture, people behave well even when no one's watching. You don't need as many rules, and everything becomes easier, but culture is also the one thing most executives don't invest in seriously.' Recommended Reading How CFOs can navigate DEI, its pullback and any legal repercussions in 2025
Los Angeles Times
4 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Federal appeals court hears arguments in Trump's bid to erase hush money conviction
NEW YORK — As President Trump focuses on global trade deals and dispatching troops to aid his immigration crackdown, his lawyers are fighting to erase the hush money criminal conviction that punctuated his reelection campaign last year and made him the first former — and now current — U.S. president found guilty of a crime. On Wednesday, that fight landed in a federal appeals court in Manhattan, where a three-judge panel heard arguments in Trump's long-running bid to get the New York case moved from state court to federal court so he can then seek to have it thrown out on presidential immunity grounds. It's one way he's trying to get the historic verdict overturned. The judges in the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals spent more than an hour grilling Trump's lawyer and the appellate chief for Manhattan district attorney's office, which prosecuted the case and wants it to remain in state court. At turns skeptical and receptive to both sides' arguments on the weighty and seldom-tested legal issues underlying the president's request, the judges said they would take the matter under advisement and issue a ruling at a later date. But there was at least one thing all parties agreed on: It is a highly unusual case. Trump lawyer Jeffrey Wall called the president 'a class of one' and Judge Susan L. Carney, noted that it was 'anomalous' for a defendant to seek to transfer a case to federal court after it has been decided in state court. Carney was nominated to the 2nd Circuit by Democratic President Barack Obama. The other judges who heard arguments, Raymond J. Lohier, Jr. and Myrna Pérez were nominated by Obama and Democratic President Joe Biden, respectively. The Republican president is asking the federal appeals court to intervene after a lower-court judge twice rejected the move. As part of the request, Trump wants the court to seize control of the criminal case and then ultimately decide his appeal of the verdict, which is now pending in a state appellate court. Trump's Justice Department — now partly run by his former criminal defense lawyers — backs his bid to move the case to federal court. If he loses, he could go to the U.S. Supreme Court. 'Everything about this cries out for federal court,' Wall argued. Wall, a former acting U.S. solicitor general, argued that Trump's historic prosecution violated the U.S. Supreme Court's presidential immunity ruling, which was decided last July, about a month after the hush money verdict. The ruling reined in prosecutions of ex-presidents for official acts and restricted prosecutors from pointing to official acts as evidence that a president's unofficial actions were illegal. Trump's lawyers argue that prosecutors rushed to trial instead of waiting for the Supreme Court's presidential immunity decision, and that they erred by showing jurors evidence that should not have been allowed under the ruling, such as former White House staffers describing how Trump reacted to news coverage of the hush money deal and tweets he sent while president in 2018. 'The district attorney holds the keys in his hand,' Wall argued. 'He doesn't have to introduce this evidence.' Steven Wu, the appellate chief for the district attorney's office, countered that Trump was too late in seeking to move the case to federal court. Normally, such a request must be made within 30 days of an arraignment, but a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. recently ruled that exceptions can be made if 'good cause' is shown. Trump hasn't done that, Wu argued. While 'this defendant is an unusual defendant,' Wu said, there is nothing unusual about a defendant raising subsequent court decisions, such as the Supreme Court's immunity ruling for Trump, when they appeal their convictions. That appeal, he argued, should stay in state court. Trump was convicted in May 2024 of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to conceal a hush money payment to adult film actor Stormy Daniels, whose affair allegations threatened to upend his 2016 presidential campaign. Trump denies her claim and said he did nothing wrong. It was the only one of his four criminal cases to go to trial. Trump's lawyers first sought to move the case to federal court following his March 2023 indictment, arguing that federal officers including former presidents have the right to be tried in federal court for charges arising from 'conduct performed while in office.' Part of the criminal case involved checks he wrote while he was president. They tried again after his conviction, about two months after the Supreme Court issued its immunity ruling. U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, who was nominated by Democratic President Bill Clinton, denied both requests, ruling in part that Trump's conviction involved his personal life, not his work as president. Wu argued Wednesday that Trump and his lawyers should've acted more immediately after the Supreme Court ruled, and that by waiting they waived their right to seek a transfer. Wall responded that they delayed seeking to move the case to federal court because they were trying to resolve the matter by raising the immunity argument with the trial judge, Juan Merchan. Merchan ultimately rejected Trump's request to throw out the conviction on immunity grounds and sentenced him on Jan. 10 to an unconditional discharge, leaving his conviction intact but sparing him any punishment. Sisak writes for the Associated Press.
