IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-20464

TAMMY K. COOPER,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

CITY OF LA PORTE POLICE DEPARTMENT; ONE UNKNOWN OFFICER 

OF CITY OF LA PORTE POLICE DEPARTMENT; CITY OF LA PORTE; 

OFFICER M. DAVIDSON,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:12-CV-2651

Before JONES and HAYNES, Circuit Judges, and CRONE, District Judge.*

PER CURIAM:**

Plaintiff Tammy Cooper appeals the summary judgment on her 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 claims in favor of the Defendants, the City of La Porte and one 

of its police officers. We AFFIRM.

* District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas, sitting by designation.

** Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 14, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-20464 Document: 00513004561 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/14/2015
No. 14-20464

I. Background

One evening Cooper’s neighbor called the La Porte Police Department to 

report that Cooper’s two children, believed to be five years of age or younger,

were riding motorized scooters on a neighborhood street without adult 

supervision. Officers Davidson and Henson of the La Porte Police Department 

responded to the scene at approximately 10:01 p.m.

Davidson spoke to Cooper in her driveway and informed her of the 

report. Cooper stated that she was outside watching her children while they 

rode scooters. During this conversation, Cooper’s garage door was open and 

Davidson observed that the rear lift gate on Cooper’s vehicle was raised. 

Davidson touched the hood of the vehicle and noticed that it was hot to the 

touch. At some point during this interaction, Cooper’s adult son came outside 

and unloaded a twelve pack of Dr. Pepper from the car. From these facts, 

Davidson inferred that Cooper might have been at the grocery store when her 

children were playing in the street.

While Davidson was speaking with Cooper, Henson spoke with the 

neighbor and another witness who informed Henson that she was driving her 

vehicle on a neighborhood street and nearly struck Cooper’s young daughter, 

who darted out in front of her on a motorized scooter. The witness stated that 

Cooper’s young son was also on the street riding a motorized scooter at the 

time, and the two children were not supervised by an adult. The neighbor

confirmed that she witnessed these events and that they occurred shortly 

before she called to report the situation to the police. 

Henson relayed this information to Davidson, who informed Cooper of 

these accounts. Cooper denied that her daughter was almost struck by a 

vehicle. Davidson asked Cooper of her whereabouts during the time the 

children were riding their scooters and whether she had been to the grocery 

2

 Case: 14-20464 Document: 00513004561 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/14/2015
No. 14-20464

store. Cooper then stated that she was invoking her Fifth Amendment right 

not to answer questions.

Davidson called the Harris County District Attorney’s Office and 

informed an Assistant District Attorney of the information he had obtained at 

the scene. The Assistant District Attorney agreed with Davidson that there 

was probable cause to arrest Cooper for abandoning or endangering a child and 

authorized charges against Cooper. Davidson arrested Cooper and left her 

children under the supervision of Cooper’s adult son after consulting with 

Cooper and the son. A grand jury indicted Cooper, but charges were later 

dismissed.

The foregoing facts—as to what Davidson observed or was told by others 

at the scene—are not disputed by Cooper. There is a dispute, however, as to 

whether Cooper’s children were outside at the time Davidson arrived. Cooper 

also disputes some of the eyewitness accounts of what happened.

Cooper sued the City of La Porte and Davidson pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983.1 She alleged that Davidson arrested her without probable cause in 

violation of the Fourth Amendment and that the City failed to properly train

its police officers. The Defendants filed a motion to exclude the report of 

Cooper’s expert witness and a motion for summary judgment as to both claims. 

The magistrate judge granted the motion to exclude the report of Cooper’s 

expert witness and recommended that the district court grant the motion for 

summary judgment. The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s 

recommendation and entered final judgment. Cooper timely appealed.

1 Cooper initially filed suit against one of the witnesses, the City of La Porte Police 

Department, and One Unknown Officer. Cooper later dismissed her claims against the 

witness, and amended her complaint to substitute the City of La Porte for the City of La Porte 

Police Department and Davidson for One Unknown Officer.

3

 

 Case: 14-20464 Document: 00513004561 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/14/2015
No. 14-20464

II. Discussion

We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, 

construing all facts and evidence in the light most favorable to Cooper, the 

nonmoving party. See EEOC v. Chevron Phillips Chem. Co., 570 F.3d 606, 615 

(5th Cir. 2009). Summary judgment is appropriate when “there is no genuine 

dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a 

matter of law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). We may affirm the district court’s grant 

of summary judgment on any ground supported by the record and presented to 

the district court. Hernandez v. Velasquez, 522 F.3d 556, 560 (5th Cir. 2008).

“We review a trial court’s decision to exclude expert testimony for abuse 

of discretion.” Brown v. Ill. Cent. R.R., 705 F.3d 531, 535 (5th Cir. 2013). 

“[W]ith respect to expert testimony offered in the summary judgment context, 

the trial court has broad discretion to rule on the admissibility of the expert’s 

evidence and its ruling must be sustained unless manifestly erroneous.” 

Hathaway v. Bazany, 507 F.3d 312, 317 (5th Cir. 2007) (citation and internal 

quotation marks omitted).

A. Exclusion of Expert Testimony

Federal Rule of Evidence 702 allows testimony by a witness “qualified as 

an expert” if, inter alia, “the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized 

knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine 

a fact in issue” and the testimony is the product of the expert reliably applying 

principles and methods to the facts of the case. FED. R. EVID. 702. “[D]istrict 

courts are assigned a gatekeeping role to determine the admissibility of expert 

testimony” based on whether the evidence is reliable and relevant. United 

States v. Ebron, 683 F.3d 105, 138–39 (5th Cir. 2012) (citation and internal 

quotation marks omitted); see Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., 509 U.S. 579, 

589 (1993).

Cooper sought to rely on the expert report of Lieutenant Eugene Kropff 

4

 Case: 14-20464 Document: 00513004561 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/14/2015
No. 14-20464

of the Duncanville Police Department. As the magistrate judge correctly 

recognized, “Kropff’s first seven conclusions relate not to the issue of whether 

the totality of the facts and circumstances within Davidson’s knowledge at the 

moment of arrest were sufficient to establish a fair probability that Plaintiff 

had committed an offense, but rather to whether Davidson conducted his 

investigation in line with what Kropff believed to be adequate procedures.” 

Thus, the magistrate judge found that these first seven conclusions, while 

occasionally mentioning probable cause, do not examine the primary issue in 

the case—whether there was probable cause to conclude that Cooper 

committed the offense of child abandonment or endangerment. The eighth 

conclusion, which does relate to probable cause, was based upon these seven 

conclusions rather than the result of a probable cause analysis. A probable 

cause analysis determines those facts and circumstances known to the officer

at the time of the arrest and analyzes whether a reasonable officer would 

conclude, based on those facts and circumstances, that there was a fair 

probability that an offense was committed. See United States v. NunezSanchez, 478 F.3d 663, 666 (5th Cir. 2007).

Cooper has failed to demonstrate that the determination to exclude this 

report because it would not assist the trier of fact was “manifestly erroneous.” 

Hathaway, 507 F.3d at 317 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 

The report is unhelpful and conclusory. See Bodzin v. Dallas, 768 F.2d 722, 

726 (5th Cir. 1985) (holding an expert witness’s conclusion that he would have 

conducted an investigation and arrest differently was irrelevant to whether 

there was probable cause); see also Benavides v. Cnty. of Wilson, 955 F.2d 968, 

973 (5th Cir. 1992) (holding expert testimony was properly excluded where it 

simply provided assertions and did not describe the applicable standards or 

5

 Case: 14-20464 Document: 00513004561 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/14/2015
No. 14-20464

how those standards were not met). We conclude that the exclusion of the 

report was not reversible error.

B. False Arrest Claim

Cooper asserts a false arrest claim against Davidson under § 1983, and 

Davidson contends that Cooper’s claim is barred by qualified immunity. “The 

Fourth Amendment requires that an arrest be supported by a properly issued 

arrest warrant or probable cause.” Glenn v. City of Tyler, 242 F.3d 307, 313 

(5th Cir. 2001). “Probable cause exists when the totality of facts and 

circumstances within a police officer’s knowledge at the moment of arrest are 

sufficient for a reasonable person to conclude that the suspect had committed 

or was committing an offense. The police officer’s knowledge must establish 

that there was a fair probability that a crime occurred.” Nunez-Sanchez, 478 

F.3d at 666–67 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). A fair 

probability is defined as more than bare suspicion but not necessarily fiftypercent probability. Id. at 667.

“When a defendant invokes qualified immunity, the burden is on the 

plaintiff to demonstrate the inapplicability of the defense” by showing: (1) “the 

defendant[] committed a constitutional violation under current law”; and (2) 

“the defendant[’s] actions were objectively unreasonable in light of the law that 

was clearly established at the time of the actions complained of.” Crostley v. 

Lamar Cnty., 717 F.3d 410, 422 (5th Cir. 2013) (citation and internal quotation 

marks omitted). Thus, as applied to a warrantless arrest, officers are entitled 

to qualified immunity unless there was not probable cause for the arrest and a 

reasonable officer in their position could not have concluded that there was 

probable cause for the arrest. See id. at 422–23.

Cooper was arrested for the state offense of abandoning or endangering 

a child. See TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. § 22.041(a)–(c) (West 2011). The following 

undisputed facts were within Davidson’s knowledge at the time of arrest: (1) a 

6

 Case: 14-20464 Document: 00513004561 Page: 6 Date Filed: 04/14/2015
No. 14-20464

neighbor called the police at 9:56 p.m. and reported that Cooper’s two children, 

appearing to be five years of age or younger, were riding motorized scooters on 

a street at night without adult supervision; (2) when interviewed at the scene, 

the neighbor and another witness stated that shortly before the neighbor 

called the police, the witness was driving her vehicle on a neighborhood street 

and nearly struck Cooper’s young daughter, who darted out in front of her on 

a motorized scooter; (3) the two stated that Cooper’s young son was also on the 

street riding a motorized scooter at the time and that the two children were 

not supervised by an adult; (4) Davidson spoke to Cooper in her driveway, and 

Cooper denied that her children were almost struck by a vehicle or 

unsupervised and invoked her Fifth Amendment right to not answer any 

further questions; (5) Davidson observed that Cooper’s garage door was open, 

that the rear lift gate on Cooper’s vehicle was raised, that the hood of the 

vehicle was hot to the touch, and that Cooper’s son came outside and unloaded 

a twelve pack of Dr. Pepper from the vehicle; and (6) Davidson relayed the 

information he had learned to a Harris County Assistant District Attorney,

who agreed with Davidson that there was probable cause to arrest Cooper for 

abandoning or endangering a child. 

At a minimum, Davidson was not objectively unreasonable in concluding

these facts were sufficient for a reasonable officer to believe that Cooper 

committed the offense of abandoning or endangering a child by leaving her 

young children to play in a roadway on motorized scooters at night and without 

supervision, during which the youngest child was almost struck by a vehicle. 

See Haggerty v. Tex. S. Univ., 391 F.3d 653, 656 (5th Cir. 2004) (“There must 

not even arguably be probable cause for the . . . arrest for immunity to be lost.” 

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); cf. Harrist v. State, Nos. 11-

01-00093 & 11-01-00094-CR, 2002 WL 32344342, at *2 (Tex. App.—Eastland, 

7

 Case: 14-20464 Document: 00513004561 Page: 7 Date Filed: 04/14/2015
No. 14-20464

Mar. 28, 2002, no pet.) (not designated for publication) (conviction affirmed 

based on, inter alia, a six-year-old child crossing a busy street twice while the 

mother slept). Importantly, while Cooper disputes the accounts given by the 

eyewitnesses, she does not dispute that they gave these accounts to the police 

over the phone and at the scene. It is immaterial to the probable cause 

determination whether Cooper actually abandoned her children or placed them 

in a dangerous situation. The determinative issue is whether “the totality of 

facts and circumstances within [Davidson’s] knowledge at the moment of arrest

are sufficient” to establish probable cause. Nunez-Sanchez, 478 F.3d at 666 

(emphasis added) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Davidson 

was entitled to credit the eyewitness statements and to disbelieve Cooper’s 

denial of their statements. See United States v. Burbridge, 252 F.3d 775, 778–

79 (5th Cir. 2001). Therefore, while Cooper presents disputes of fact, these are 

not disputes of material fact that preclude summary judgment. See Ameristar 

Jet Charter, Inc. v. Signal Composites, Inc., 271 F.3d 624, 626 (5th Cir. 2001)

(“An issue is material if its resolution could affect the outcome of the action.”).2 

Accordingly, the district court did not err in concluding that Davidson is 

entitled to qualified immunity. 

C. Failure to Train Claim

Municipalities are not liable under § 1983 for a constitutional violation 

of an employee unless it is the direct result of a municipal custom or policy. 

Sanders-Burns v. City of Plano, 594 F.3d 366, 380 (5th Cir. 2010). To establish 

a failure to train claim, a plaintiff “must demonstrate [among other things]

2 Cooper points out a dispute as to whether Davidson observed Cooper’s children run 

into the house when he arrived or whether the children were inside, as well as whether she 

went to the store. However, the above-listed evidence considered to the exclusion of these

disputed facts is still sufficient to establish probable cause. See Crostley, 717 F.3d at 423 

(“[T]he deficiency of any one piece of evidence used to demonstrate probable cause does not, 

on its own, mean that probable cause did not exist.”); see also United States v. Privette, 947 

F.2d 1259, 1260 (5th Cir. 1991).

8

 

 Case: 14-20464 Document: 00513004561 Page: 8 Date Filed: 04/14/2015
No. 14-20464

that . . . [the City’s] training policy procedures were inadequate. Id. at 381. 

Cooper’s only argument in this regard is based upon what Davidson allegedly 

knew and did. However, such evidence, standing alone, is insufficient to prove 

the first element of a failure to train claim. See City of Canton v. Harris, 489 

U.S. 378, 390–91 (1989). On appeal, she points to nothing else. Summary 

judgment was properly granted on this claim.

AFFIRMED.

9

 Case: 14-20464 Document: 00513004561 Page: 9 Date Filed: 04/14/2015