608 F. App'x 195
5th Cir.2015Background
- Neighbor called police at ~9:56 p.m. reporting Cooper’s two young children (appearing ≤5) riding motorized scooters in the street without adult supervision and that one child nearly was struck by a car.
- Officers Davidson and Henson arrived; Davidson spoke with Cooper in her driveway, observed her garage open, her vehicle’s lift gate raised, a hot hood, and Cooper’s adult son remove a 12‑pack from the car; Cooper invoked the Fifth Amendment when asked about her whereabouts.
- Witnesses at the scene and by phone told officers similar accounts that the children were unsupervised and one nearly was hit; Cooper disputes some witness descriptions but does not dispute that officers heard those accounts.
- Davidson consulted a Harris County Assistant District Attorney, who agreed there was probable cause to arrest Cooper for abandoning/endangering a child; Cooper was arrested, indicted, and later had charges dismissed.
- Cooper sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging false arrest (no probable cause) and municipal failure to train; district court excluded Cooper’s expert report and granted summary judgment for the City and Davidson; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of expert report | Kropff’s report shows investigation/training failures and rebuts probable cause | Report is irrelevant, conclusory, and not helpful under Rule 702/Daubert | Court affirmed exclusion: report unhelpful and conclusory, exclusion not manifestly erroneous |
| False arrest / probable cause | Cooper: eyewitness accounts are disputed; arrest lacked probable cause | Davidson: officer had sufficient facts (witness reports, observations, ADA approval) and is entitled to qualified immunity | Court held probable cause existed from totality of facts known to Davidson; Davidson entitled to qualified immunity |
| Qualified immunity standard | Cooper: arrest violated Fourth Amendment | Davidson: actions objectively reasonable given clearly established law | Held that a reasonable officer could conclude probable cause existed; immunity applies |
| Municipal failure to train | Cooper: City failed to train officers causing violation | City: no evidence of inadequate training or policy causing the arrest; isolated officer conduct insufficient | Held summary judgment proper—Cooper offered no evidence of municipal policy or inadequate training |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Ill. Cent. R.R., 705 F.3d 531 (5th Cir. 2013) (standard of review for exclusion of expert testimony)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (trial court gatekeeping role for expert admissibility)
- United States v. Nunez‑Sanchez, 478 F.3d 663 (5th Cir. 2007) (probable cause defined as fair probability from officer’s known facts)
- Glenn v. City of Tyler, 242 F.3d 307 (5th Cir. 2001) (warrantless arrest requires probable cause)
- Crostley v. Lamar Cnty., 717 F.3d 410 (5th Cir. 2013) (plaintiff bears burden to show inapplicability of qualified immunity)
- City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989) (municipal liability for failure to train requires proof that training was inadequate and caused constitutional violation)