ÿWPCÁ ¶“K*=,›yø’ù\Q.ÐèÞÐûfå’lÏ«XÙRßHæK*=,»*¥Î‘pñeSŒ3që¦0x¨È—¬²lWÁcÚz%yo«6o%kw@rþ((#Á0 %ñ 0D÷ 0(;U@c 0Æ£êinTS N§ :© ^ ã wï 4ó   m E/ f1 a3 NG >I ¹‡ b@‚HHÊÊÊÊÊÊÊUFÒUFUF^^^^ B¤˜HP LaserJet 5/5M - StandardÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0"X(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó($¡¡(ÖÃ9 Z(Times New Roman (d:2K{$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€!¬í!X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó àÝ ƒK{$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€!½µ!X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔCasilda€Acosta's€sons,€Kenny€and€Kevin,€are€also€parties.€Ð ° ÐTheir€claims€are€largely€derivative,€however,€and€for€ease€inÐ †Ö Ðreference€we€treat€Casilda€as€if€she€were€the€sole€plaintiff€andÐ \¬ Ðappellant.€€Our€opinion€is,€of€course,€binding€on€all€three.«<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTXXxþ6X@ÉDQX@<þ6X9`(CourierTTXXwþ6X@ÉüQX@ 0Ý ƒK{$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€!½µ!X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔTwo€of€these€are€"deliberate€indifference"€counts€based€onÐ ° Ðalleged€failures€properly€to€train€police€officers.æœ61s n16Xy File3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀøÀTABLE Aq:\template\OPINIONS\SELYA.WPT ¯Ý ƒK{$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€!½µ!X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAmes€and€Powers€made€only€cameo€appearances€ð"ð€Ames€went€intoÐ ° Ðbankruptcy€and€Powers€was€never€served€ð"ð€so€we€eschew€any€furtherÐ †Ö Ðreference€to€them,€instead€treating€the€municipal€defendants€as€ifÐ \¬ Ðthey€were€the€sole€targets€of€the€suit.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòSunview€Condo.Ð 2‚ ÐAss'nóó€v.€òòFlexel€Int'l,€Ltd.óó,€116€F.3d€962,€963€n.1€(1st€Cir.€1997)Ð X Ð(taking€a€similar€approach€in€analogous€circumstances).- ù- Ô  0 ' Turner0Turner .    ÿ.Courier New Regular<4šÛ 9Z+‹.Courier New Regular.Courier New Regular dÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑTRY,3Ø'Xà3Ø' Letter 3Ø' Letterÿ3Ø'TÑÑ ? ÑÙ*ƒ !Ùò òÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡"°`!°X"XÔÔ‡°wI°°"°`!ÔUnited€States€Court€of€AppealsÐ ° ÐÔ#†X®X°°wIÅ#ÔÔ‡„Ä€„XX®ÔFor€the€First€CircuitÔ#†X®X„„Ä€Y#ÔÔ#†"X½µXXX®ä#Ôó óÐ „Ô ÐÓ¹ÓÌÌßA€') °°` dE< ` AßÐ  à ÐÌÌNo.€04„1016Ð K › ÐÌà@ ìàCASILDA€ACOSTA,€ETC.,€ET€AL.,ˆÐ ÷ G  ÐÌà@ˆˆìàPlaintiffs,€Appellants,ˆÐ £ó  ÐÌà@tt)ìàv.ˆÐ OŸ  ÐÌà@@ @ ìàAMES€DEPARTMENT€STORES,€INC.,€ET€AL.,ˆÐ ûK  ÐÌà@ÄÄìàDefendants,€Appellees.ˆÐ §÷ ÐÌßA€') °°` dE<R` AßÐ S£ ÐÌà@œ œ ìàAPPEAL€FROM€THE€UNITED€STATES€DISTRICT€COURTˆÐ 8ˆ ÐÌà@l l ìàFOR€THE€DISTRICT€OF€RHODE€ISLANDˆÐ ä4 ÐÌà@œ œ ìà[Hon.€Ernest€C.€Torres,€òòU.S.€District€Judgeóó]ˆÐ à ÐÌßA€') °°` dE<;` AßÐ <Œ ÐÌà@„„'ìàBeforeˆÐ !q ÐÌÓ  Óà@@((ìà€Selya,€òòCircuit€Judgeóó,Ð Í ÐÌCoffin€and€Cyr,€òòSenior€Circuit€Judgesóó.Ð yÉ! ÐÌßA€') °°` dE<$!` AßÐ %!u# ÐÌÓ  ÓÓ  Óà  àòòBruce€P.€Gladsteinóó€on€brief€for€appellants.Ð  "Z% Ðà  àòòMarc€DeSistoóó,€òòKathleen€M.€Danielsóó€and€òòDeSisto€Lawóó€on€brief€forÐ à"0& Ðappellees.Ð ¶#' ÐÌÌÔ*‹ƒ'ddd Xdd Xdd X°(#°(#‹ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ+  ÔÐ 8&ˆ!*8&ˆ! ‹‹ÐÓÓÐ SIœ&ì!+ `­â@38251„„‰`­â@‰‹‹SÐÌSeptember€22,€2004Ð r'Â"- ÐÐ RHCH(˜#." `­â@38251 `­â@ ‹‹RÐÐ(œ&ì!/  (ÐÓ  ÓÙ* !ÙÌÌÓ  ÓÌÐ  Ð+ '2? ÐÑ  ÑÓÓÑ8€#½µ#XXdÖdÈ8ÑÑ€ÑÓ*°,X°` ¨ ƒX°œX*Óà ` àò òSELYA,€òòCircuit€Judgeóó.ó ó€€Plaintiff„appellant€Casilda€AcostaÐ ° Ðinvites€us€to€vacate€a€summary€judgment€order€terminating€her€suitÐ xÈ Ðfor€false€arrest€under,€inter€alia,€42€U.S.C.€ðð€1983.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€DiscerningÐ $t Ðno€error€in€the€district€court's€disposition€of€the€matter,€weÐ Ð  Ðdecline€Acosta's€invitation.Ð | Ì Ðà ` àThe€facts€are€uncomplicated.€€Glenn€Powers€worked€as€aÐ ( x  Ðstore€detective€for€Ames€Department€Stores,€Inc.€(Ames).€€OnÐ Ô$  ÐOctober€18,€1999,€he€called€the€Middletown,€Rhode€Island,€policeÐ €Ð  Ðdepartment€to€report€a€shoplifting€at€a€local€Ames€emporium.€Ð ,|  ÐOfficer€Kelly€Mitchell€responded€to€the€call€and€Powers€informedÐ Ø( Ðher€that€the€appellant,€her€sons,€and€a€group€of€other€persons€hadÐ „Ô Ðentered€the€shop€that€evening.€€He€watched€the€appellant€take€twoÐ 0€ Ðjackets,€emblazoned€with€the€logo€of€the€New€England€Patriots,€fromÐ Ü, Ða€rack€and€outfit€her€sons€with€them.€€He€then€surveilled€the€trioÐ ˆØ Ðas€they€walked€around€the€store€and€proceeded€through€the€checkoutÐ 4„ Ðline€without€making€any€attempt€to€pay€for€the€jackets.Ð à0 Ðà ` àPowers€stopped€the€suspected€shoplifters€as€soon€as€theyÐ ŒÜ  Ðleft€the€premises.€€When€he€confronted€them€with€the€allegedÐ 8!ˆ" Ðlarceny,€one€of€the€boys€admitted€that€he€had€donned€the€jacket€inÐ ä"4$ Ðâ âthe€store.Ð $à& Ðà ` àOnce€she€had€interviewed€Powers,€Officer€Mitchell€talkedÐ ° Ðâ âwith€the€appellant.€€She€found€communication€difficult€because€ofÐ \¬ Ða€language€barrier;€Mitchell€spoke€no€Spanish€and€the€appellantÐ X Ðlacked€fluency€in€English.€€Nonetheless,€Mitchell€was€able€to€gleanÐ ´  Ðthe€essence€of€the€appellant's€claim:€€that€she€had€purchased€theÐ ` ° Ðjackets€on€an€earlier€shopping€trip.€€To€bolster€that€claim,€theÐ  \  Ðappellant€gave€Mitchell€a€layaway€receipt€dated€October€5,€1999.€Ð ¸  ÐThis€receipt€indicated€that€ten€items€had€been€rung€up€(includingÐ d´  Ðtwo€labeled€"PATRIOTS€OUT"€at€a€sale€price€of€$22.41€each);€thatÐ `  Ð$49.94€had€been€paid€toward€a€previous€balance;€and€that€theÐ ¼  Ðlayaway€was€complete.€€The€receipt€did€not€indicate€what€"PATRIOTSÐ h¸ ÐOUT"€meant.Ð d Ðà ` àOfficer€Mitchell€then€inspected€the€jackets.€€SheÐ À Ðobserved€a€wet€spot€on€one€of€them,€consistent€with€what€mightÐ l¼ Ðappear€if€soda€or€juice€had€just€been€spilled€on€it.€€She€alsoÐ h Ðfound€a€used€tissue€in€a€jacket€pocket.€€At€that€point,€MitchellÐ Ä Ðtook€the€appellant€into€custody€and€charged€her€with€shoplifting.€Ð pÀ  ÐAlthough€at€least€one€other€officer€had€by€then€responded€to€theÐ !l" Ðscene,€the€police€did€not€converse€with€any€other€Ames€personnelÐ È"$ Ðbefore€effectuating€the€arrest.€€By€the€same€token,€they€did€notÐ t$Ä& Ðinterview€other€customers€(not€even€those€persons€who€hadÐ  &p!( Ðoriginally€accompanied€the€appellant€to€the€store).Ð Ì'#* Ðà ` àFor€reasons€that€need€not€concern€us,€the€criminalÐ x)È$, Ðcharges€were€subsequently€dropped.€€The€incident,€however,€was€notÐ $+t&. Ðforgotten.€€The€appellant€brought€suit€in€a€Rhode€Island€stateÐ ° Ðcourt€alleging€seventeen€different€causes€of€action€against€aÐ \¬ Ðmyriad€of€defendants.€€The€complaint,€as€amended,€named€Ames,Ð X ÐPowers,€the€Town€of€Middletown,€the€Middletown€police€department,Ð ´  Ðthe€town's€finance€director,€and€several€police€officers€(amongÐ ` ° Ðthem,€Officer€Mitchell)€as€defendants.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€municipal€defendantsÐ  \  Ðremoved€the€case€to€the€United€States€District€Court€for€theÐ ¸  ÐDistrict€of€Rhode€Island.€€òòSeeóó€28€U.S.C.€ðððð€1331,€1441(b).Ð d´  Ðà ` àIn€due€course,€the€municipal€defendants€moved€for€summaryÐ `  Ðjudgment.€€òòSeeóó€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.€56.€€The€district€court€foundÐ ¼  Ðprobable€cause€for€the€arrest€and,€accordingly,€granted€the€motion.€Ð h¸ ÐThis€appeal€ensued.Ð d Ðà ` àThe€summary€judgment€device€enables€a€court€"to€pierceÐ À Ðthe€boilerplate€of€the€pleadings€and€assay€the€parties'€proof€inÐ l¼ Ðorder€to€determine€whether€trial€is€actually€required."€€òòWynneóó€v.Ð h ÐòòTufts€Univ.€Sch.€of€Med.óó,€976€F.2d€791,€794€(1st€Cir.€1992).ò òòòóóó ó€€ThatÐ Ä Ðdevice€functions€successfully€when€"the€pleadings,€depositions,Ð pÀ  Ðanswers€to€interrogatories,€and€admissions€on€file,€together€withÐ !l" Ðthe€affidavits,€if€any,€show€that€there€is€no€genuine€issue€as€toÐ È"$ Ðany€material€fact€and€that€the€moving€party€is€entitled€to€judgmentÐ t$Ä& Ðas€a€matter€of€law."€€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.€56(c).€€Faced€with€a€properlyÐ ° Ðdocumented€summary€judgment€motion,€the€nonmovant€can€thwart€theÐ \¬ Ðmotion€only€by€showing€through€materials€of€evidentiary€qualityÐ X Ðthat€a€genuine€dispute€exists€about€some€material€fact.€€òòAndersonóóÐ ´  Ðv.€òòLiberty€Lobby,€Inc.óó,€477€U.S.€242,€247„48€(1986);€òòMedina„MunozóóÐ ` ° Ðv.€òòR.J.€Reynolds€Tobacco€Co.óó,€896€F.2d€5,€8€(1st€€Cir.€1990).€€ThisÐ  \  Ðevidence€"must€have€substance€in€the€sense€that€it€limns€differingÐ ¸  Ðversions€of€the€truth€which€a€factfinder€must€resolve€at€an€ensuingÐ d´  Ðtrial."€€òòMackóó€v.€òòGreat€Atl.€&€Pac.€Tea€Co.óó,€871€F.2d€179,€181€(1stÐ `  ÐCir.€1989).Ð ¼  Ðà ` àIn€assessing€such€a€proffer,€an€inquiring€court€mustÐ h¸ Ðresolve€all€evidentiary€conflicts€and€draw€all€reasonableÐ d Ðinferences€in€the€nonmovant's€favor.€€òòId.óó€€If€the€proffer,€viewedÐ À Ðthrough€this€prism,€"is€merely€colorable,€or€is€not€significantlyÐ l¼ Ðprobative,€summary€judgment€may€be€granted."€€òòAndersonóó,€477€U.S.€atÐ h Ð249„50€(internal€citations€omitted).€€In€an€ensuing€appeal,€weÐ Ä Ðafford€plenary€review,€òòMesnickóó€v.€òòGen.€Elec.€Co.óó,€950€F.2d€816,€822Ð pÀ  Ð(1st€Cir.€1991);€òòGarsideóó€v.€òòOsco€Drug,€Inc.óó,€895€F.2d€46,€48€(1stÐ !l" ÐCir.€1990),€utilizing€the€same€criteria€as€the€trial€court,€òòPerezóóÐ È"$ Ðv.€òòVolvo€Car€Corp.óó,€247€F.3d€303,€310€(1st€Cir.€2001);€òòWermeóó€v.Ð t$Ä& ÐòòMerrillóó,€84€F.3d€479,€482€(1st€Cir.€1996).Ð  &p!( Ðà ` àWe€turn€now€from€the€general€to€the€particular.€€BeforeÐ Ì'#* Ðus,€the€appellant€mounts€a€four„pronged€attack€on€the€districtÐ x)È$, Ðcourt's€probable€cause€determination.€€She€contends€(i)€that€theÐ $+t&. Ðexistence€vel€non€of€probable€cause€is€always€for€the€jury€(and,Ð ° Ðthus,€not€susceptible€to€summary€judgment);€(ii)€that€genuineÐ \¬ Ðissues€of€material€fact€preclude€judicial€resolution€of€theÐ X Ðprobable€cause€question€here;€(iii)€that€even€absent€such€aÐ ´  Ðdispute,€the€facts€of€record€do€not€support€the€lower€court'sÐ ` ° Ðprobable€cause€determination;€and€(iv)€that,€in€all€events,€theÐ  \  Ðdetermination€was€infirm€because€further€investigation€would€haveÐ ¸  Ðdispelled€the€basis€for€it.€€We€discuss€these€contentionsÐ d´  Ðsequentially.Ð `  Ðà ` àWith€respect€to€her€first€asseveration,€the€appellantÐ ¼  Ðrelies€upon€our€decision€in€òòB.C.R.€Transport€Co.óó€v.€òòFontaineóó,€727Ð h¸ ÐF.2d€7€(1st€Cir.€1984).€€That€reliance€is€mislaid.€€In€òòB.C.R.Ð d ÐTransportóó,€the€defendant€argued€that€probable€cause€necessarilyÐ À Ðexisted€because€a€warrant,€based€upon€information€supplied€by€anÐ l¼ Ðalleged€victim,€had€been€obtained.€€òòId.óó€at€9„10.€€We€rejected€thatÐ h Ðbroad€proposition,€describing€the€probable€cause€inquiry€asÐ Ä Ðsituation„specific.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€at€10€(explaining€that€"whether€or€notÐ pÀ  Ðprobable€cause€exists€.€.€.€invariably€depends€on€the€particularÐ !l" Ðfacts€and€circumstances€of€[each]€case").€€We€went€on€to€note€thatÐ È"$ Ðthe€alleged€victim€was€disoriented€and€ranting,€and,€accordingly,Ð t$Ä& Ðthe€arresting€officers€needed€to€engage€in€further€inquiry€beforeÐ  &p!( Ðrelying€on€that€account€to€find€probable€cause.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€at€10„11.Ð Ì'#* Ðà ` àThe€appellant€tries€to€ride€this€horse€well€past€theÐ x)È$, Ðboundary€that€we€staked€out€in€òòB.C.R.€Transportóó.€€Although€we€ruledÐ $+t&. Ðthere€that€the€issue€of€probable€cause€was€for€the€jury,òòóó€thatÐ ° Ðruling€was€not,€as€the€appellant€suggests,€intended€to€haveÐ \¬ Ðuniversal€applicability.€€The€outcome€in€òòB.C.R.€TransportóóÐ X Ðrepresented€the€exception,€not€the€rule.€€More€relevant€here€is€ourÐ ´  Ðrecent€observation€that€"it€is€pointless€to€submit€.€.€.€[a]Ð ` ° Ðprobable€cause€question[]€to€the€jury€at€all€unless€the€facts€areÐ  \  Ðdisputed."€€òòBoltonóó€v.€òòTayloróó,€367€F.3d€5,€8€n.2€(1st€Cir.€2004);Ð ¸  Ðòòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòOrnelasóó€v.€òòUnited€Statesóó,€517€U.S.€690,€696€(1996)Ð d´  Ð(explaining€that€when€the€relevant€facts€leading€to€the€officer'sÐ `  Ðinvolvement€are€established,€probable€cause€is€a€"mixed€question€ofÐ ¼  Ðlaw€and€fact"€suitable€for€determination€by€the€court);€òòBellóó€v.Ð h¸ ÐòòIrwinóó,€321€F.3d€637,€640€(7th€Cir.)€òòóó(holding€that€the€existence€ofÐ d Ðprobable€cause€is€ordinarily€for€the€court,€not€for€the€jury),Ð À Ðòòcert.óó€òòdeniedóó,€124€S.€Ct.€84€(2003).Ð l¼ Ðà ` àIn€the€case€at€hand,€the€òòmaterialóó€facts€ð"ð€what€the€policeÐ h Ðknew€at€the€moment€of€the€arrest,€the€source€of€their€knowledge,Ð Ä Ðand€the€leads€that€they€pursued€or€eschewed€ð"ð€are€not€in€dispute.€Ð pÀ  ÐWhen€that€is€so,€the€existence€vel€non€of€probable€cause€ordinarilyÐ !l" Ðis€amenable€to€summary€judgment.€€òòSeeóó,òòóó€òòe.g.óó,€òòRocheóó€v.€òòJohn€HancockÐ È"$ ÐMut.€Life€Ins.€Co.óó,€81€F.3d€249,€254„56€(1st€Cir.€1996)€(affirmingÐ t$Ä& Ðthe€entry€of€summary€judgment€in€such€a€situation).€€The€question,Ð  &p!( Ðthen,€is€whether€brevis€disposition€was€appropriate€on€the€facts€ofÐ Ì'#* Ðâ âthis€case.Ð x)È$, Ðà ` àThe€appellant's€second€argument€begins€the€dialogue€onÐ ° Ðâ âthat€question.€€She€hangs€her€hat€primarily€on€the€layaway€receipt.€Ð \¬ ÐThis€need€not€detain€us.€€The€dispute€over€the€meaning€of€theÐ X Ðlayaway€receipt€is,€at€bottom,€merely€whether€the€receipt€fairlyÐ ´  Ðindicated€to€a€reasonable€officer€that€the€appellant€purchased€twoÐ ` ° ÐPatriots€jackets€on€October€5.€€Even€were€we€to€resolve€thisÐ  \  Ðquestion€in€the€appellant's€favor,€the€fact€that€she€bought€twoÐ ¸  Ðjackets€on€October€5€would€not€change€the€outcome€of€the€probableÐ d´  Ðcause€inquiry.Ð `  Ðà ` àThere€are€at€least€two€conflicting€inferences€that€couldÐ ¼  Ðbe€drawn€from€such€a€fact.€€One€possibility€is€that€the€appellantÐ h¸ Ðbought€the€coats€in€question€and€did€not€steal€them.€€Another€isÐ d Ðthat€she€bought€two€other€coats€on€October€5,€and€was€using€theÐ À Ðreceipt€as€a€cover€for€a€theft€on€October€18.€€To€resolve€the€issueÐ l¼ Ðof€probable€cause,€it€does€not€matter€which€inference€is€correct.€Ð h ÐIt€is€sufficient€that€a€reasonable€officer€in€possession€of€thisÐ Ä Ðinformation€might€nonetheless€find€it€likely€that€the€storeÐ pÀ  Ðdetective's€eyewitness€account€was€true€and€that€the€appellant€hadÐ !l" Ðcommitted€a€crime.€€òòSeeóó€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòFigueroaóó,€818€F.2d€1020,Ð È"$ Ð1023„24€(1st€Cir.€1987).€€In€light€of€Powers's€insistence€that€heÐ t$Ä& Ðpersonally€witnessed€the€theft,€the€exculpatory€value€of€theÐ  &p!( Ðreceipt€is€simply€insufficient€for€us€to€conclude€that€MitchellÐ Ì'#* Ðâ âcould€not€reasonably€have€found€probable€cause.Ð x)È$, Ðà ` àThe€appellant's€third€line€of€attack€directly€challengesÐ ° Ðâ âthe€adequacy€of€the€evidence€on€which€the€district€court's€probableÐ \¬ Ðcause€determination€was€based.€€That€challenge€requires€us€to€limnÐ X Ðthe€analytic€framework€for€probable€cause€determinations€and€thenÐ ´  Ðto€apply€that€framework.Ð ` ° Ðà ` àWhen€there€is€probable€cause€for€an€arrest,€the€FourthÐ  \  ÐAmendment's€prohibition€against€unreasonable€searches€and€seizuresÐ ¸  Ðis€not€offended.€€òòAtwateróó€v.€òòLago€Vistaóó,€532€U.S.€318,€354€(2001);Ð d´  ÐòòRocheóó,€81€F.3d€at€254.€€Probable€cause€for€an€arrest€exists€whenÐ `  Ðthe€arresting€officer,€acting€upon€apparently€trustworthyÐ ¼  Ðinformation,€reasonably€concludes€that€a€crime€has€been€(or€isÐ h¸ Ðabout€to€be)€committed€and€that€the€putative€arrestee€likely€is€oneÐ d Ðof€the€perpetrators.€€òòSeeóó€òòBeckóó€v.€òòOhioóó,€379€U.S.€89,€91€(1964);òòóóÐ À ÐòòFigueroaóó,€818€F.2d€at€1023.€€Courts€use€an€objective€standard€whenÐ l¼ Ðdetermining€the€existence€of€probable€cause.€€òòValenteóó€v.€òòWallaceóó,Ð h Ð332€F.3d€30,€32€(1st€Cir.€2003);€òòRocheóó,€81€F.3d€at€254.€€The€focusÐ Ä Ðis€not€on€certitude,€but,€rather,€on€the€likelihood€of€criminalÐ pÀ  Ðactivity.€€òòSeeóó€òòIllinoisóó€v.€òòGatesóó,€462€U.S.€213,€235€(1983);Ð !l" ÐòòSpinellióó€v.€òòUnited€Statesóó,€393€U.S.€410,€419€(1969);€òòUnited€StatesóóÐ È"$ Ðv.€òòWinchenbachóó,€197€F.3d€548,€555€(1st€Cir.€1999).€€Finally,€courtsÐ t$Ä& Ðmust€apply€these€principles€fluidly€to€the€totality€of€the€extantÐ  &p!( Ðcircumstances.€€òòGatesóó,€462€U.S.€at€232€&€n.7;€òòWinchenbachóó,€197€F.3dÐ Ì'#* Ðâ âat€555.Ð x)È$, Ðà ` àHere,€the€existence€of€probable€cause€depends,€in€theÐ ° Ðâ âfirst€instance,€upon€the€cogency€of€the€account€given€by€the€storeÐ \¬ Ðdetective€(Powers).€€Taken€at€face€value,€Powers's€tale€certainlyÐ X Ðgave€Officer€Mitchell€reason€to€believe€that€a€crime€had€beenÐ ´  Ðcommitted€and€that€the€appellant€had€committed€it.€€The€appellantÐ ` ° Ðnonetheless€argues€that€Mitchell€should€have€deemed€Powers'sÐ  \  Ðstatements€unreliable€(or,€at€least,€suspect)€because€she€had€neverÐ ¸  Ðmet€him€before€and,€thus,€could€not€accurately€assess€hisÐ d´  Ðcredibility.€€That€sets€the€bar€too€high.Ð `  Ðà ` àVictims'€complaints€are€a€prime€source€of€investigatoryÐ ¼  Ðinformation€for€police€officers.€€In€the€absence€of€circumstancesÐ h¸ Ðthat€would€raise€a€reasonably€prudent€officer's€antennae,€there€isÐ d Ðno€requirement€that€the€officer€corroborate€every€aspect€of€everyÐ À Ðcomplaint€with€extrinsic€information.€€The€uncorroborated€testimonyÐ l¼ Ðof€a€victim€or€other€percipient€witness,€standing€alone,€ordinarilyÐ h Ðcan€support€a€finding€of€probable€cause.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòForestóó€v.Ð Ä ÐòòPawtucket€Police€Dep'tóó,€___€F.3d€___,€___€(1st€Cir.€2004)€[No.€03„Ð pÀ  Ð2652,€slip€op.€at€10]€(stating€that€information€furnished€by€aÐ !l" Ðvictim€is€generally€considered€sufficiently€reliable€to€support€aÐ È"$ Ðfinding€of€probable€cause);€òòB.C.R.€Transportóó,€727€F.2d€at€10Ð t$Ä& Ð(same).€€Although€the€victim€here€is€a€corporation€communicatingÐ  &p!( Ðthrough€its€agent,€the€agent€held€himself€out€to€be€an€eyewitnessÐ Ì'#* Ðto€the€pilferage€and€rendered€a€coherent,€facially€plausibleÐ x)È$, Ðaccount.€€Consequently,€we€see€no€reason€to€treat€Ames's€complaintÐ $+t&. Ðof€a€crime,€related€through€Powers,€differently€from€any€otherÐ ° Ðcomplaint€by€a€victim.Ð \¬ Ðà ` àThis€conclusion€is€reinforced€by€Powers's€status€as€aÐ X Ðstore€detective.€€At€least€one€respected€court€has€gone€so€far€asÐ ´  Ðto€recognize€that,€in€the€retail€context,€private€security€officersÐ ` ° Ðare€inherently€reliable.€€òòSeeóó€òòGramemosóó€v.€òòJewel€Cos.óó,€797€F.2d€432,Ð  \  Ð439€(7th€Cir.€1986)€(noting€that€several€disincentives€stemmingÐ ¸  Ðfrom€false€crime€reports€collectively€provide€reason€to€infer€thatÐ d´  Ðstore€detectives€are€reliable).€€While€we€hesitate€to€indulge€inÐ `  Ðsweeping€generalizations,€we€think€that€in€this€case€OfficerÐ ¼  ÐMitchell€had€every€reason€to€believe€that€the€store's€securityÐ h¸ Ðofficer€was€being€truthful.Ð d Ðà ` àIn€an€effort€to€undermine€the€credibility€of€Powers'sÐ À Ðstatements,€the€appellant€points€to€three€facts:€€the€layawayÐ l¼ Ðreceipt,€the€absence€of€any€evidence€of€empty€coat€hangers€or€priceÐ h Ðtags€for€the€jackets,€and€the€"used"€appearance€of€one€of€theÐ Ä Ðjackets.€€In€our€estimation,€none€of€these€facts€is€telling.€€AsÐ pÀ  Ðnoted€above,€the€layaway€receipt€is€at€best€equivocal.€€As€for€theÐ !l" Ðhangers€and€price€tags,€Mitchell€never€thought€to€ask€for€them€ð"ðÐ È"$ Ðand€it€is€therefore€speculative€whether€or€not€they€could€have€beenÐ t$Ä& Ðfound.€€And,€finally,€the€appearance€of€the€spotted€jacket€actuallyÐ  &p!( Ðmay€cut€the€other€way:€€the€fact€that€the€spots€were€wetÐ Ì'#* Ðcontradicts€the€appellant's€suggestion€that€they€were€old.€€TheÐ x)È$, Ðused€kleenex€in€the€pocket€tells€us€nothing.Ð $+t&. Ðà ` àTo€cinch€matters,€the€totality€of€the€circumstancesÐ ° Ðincludes€far€more€than€these€isolated€tidbits.€€Officer€MitchellÐ \¬ Ðspoke€first„hand€with€the€complaining€witness,€who€plausiblyÐ X Ðclaimed€to€have€observed€the€entire€incident.€€Mitchell€had€noÐ ´  Ðreason€to€doubt€that€claim.€€She€then€was€told€that€one€of€theÐ ` ° Ðjacket„wearers€had€admitted€to€having€donned€the€jacket€inside€theÐ  \  Ðstore.€€Mitchell€proceeded€to€speak€to€the€appellant€and€got€theÐ ¸  Ðgist€of€her€story:€€that€she€previously€had€purchased€theÐ d´  Ðmerchandise.€€But€the€layaway€receipt€that€she€proffered€wasÐ `  Ðambiguous€and€gave€the€officer€no€reason€to€question€Powers'sÐ ¼  Ðveracity:€€he€was€a€percipient€witness€whose€job€responsibilitiesÐ h¸ Ðinvolved€the€very€sort€of€observations€that€he€was€undertaking.€Ð d ÐHence,€there€was€no€reason€for€Mitchell€not€to€rely€on€hisÐ À Ðeyewitness€version€of€events.€€When€an€arresting€officer€has€theÐ l¼ Ðbenefit€of€an€apparently€credible€eyewitness€account,€the€amount€ofÐ h Ðarguably€exculpatory€evidence€must€be€substantial€before€furtherÐ Ä Ðinvestigation€can€be€required€as€a€constitutional€matter.€€TheÐ pÀ  Ðevidence€here,€if€exculpatory€at€all,€was€far€from€substantial.Ð !l" Ðà ` àThe€test€for€probable€cause€"does€not€require€theÐ È"$ Ðofficers'€conclusion€to€be€ironclad,€or€even€highly€probable.€Ð t$Ä& ÐTheir€conclusion€that€probable€cause€exists€need€only€beÐ  &p!( Ðreasonable."€€òòWinchenbachóó,€197€F.3d€at€555„56.€€In€this€case,€theÐ Ì'#* Ðâ âofficer€passed€that€test€with€flying€colors.Ð x)È$, Ðà ` àThe€appellant's€last€argument€depends€on€a€three„partÐ ° Ðâ âalgorithm.€€She€asserts€that€even€if€the€investigation€that€OfficerÐ \¬ ÐMitchell€actually€conducted€created€an€aura€of€probable€cause,€theÐ X Ðdistrict€court's€determination€cannot€stand€because€(i)€the€policeÐ ´  Ðhad€a€responsibility€to€continue€investigating€the€matter;€(ii)Ð ` ° Ðthey€failed€to€do€so;€and€(iii)€had€they€not€foregone€this€duty,Ð  \  Ðthey€would€have€dispelled€the€aura€and€learned€that€there€was€noÐ ¸  Ðprobable€cause€for€an€arrest.€€In€particular,€the€appellant€positsÐ d´  Ðthat€the€police€should€have€interviewed€the€other€Spanish„speakingÐ `  Ðpersons€who€had€accompanied€her€to€the€store,€spoken€with€the€storeÐ ¼  Ðmanager,€probed€further€into€the€significance€(if€any)€of€theÐ h¸ Ðlayaway€receipt,€and€hunted€for€the€hangers€and€price€tags.Ð d Ðà ` àProbable€cause€determinations€are,€virtually€byÐ À Ðdefinition,€preliminary€and€tentative.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòBarberóó€v.€òòPageóó,Ð l¼ Ð390€U.S.€719,€725€(1968).€€Not€surprisingly,€then,€the€SupremeÐ h ÐCourt€has€flatly€rejected€the€idea€that€the€police€have€a€standingÐ Ä Ðobligation€to€investigate€potential€defenses€before€findingÐ pÀ  Ðprobable€cause.€€òòSeeóó€òòBakeróó€v.€òòMcCollanóó,€443€U.S.€137,€145„46Ð !l" Ð(1979).€€Following€this€lead,€we€too€have€disclaimed€any€unflaggingÐ È"$ Ðduty€on€the€part€of€law€enforcement€officers€to€investigate€fullyÐ t$Ä& Ðbefore€making€a€probable€cause€determination.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòFranco„deÐ  &p!( ÐJerezóó€v.€òòBurgosóó,€876€F.2d€1038,€1042€(1st€Cir.€1989).€€While€weÐ Ì'#* Ðhave€recognized€that€such€a€duty€may€arise€in€highly€idiosyncraticÐ x)È$, Ðcircumstances,€òòseeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòB.C.R.€Transportóó,€727€F.2d€at€10„11,€weÐ $+t&. Ðhave€made€it€clear€that€an€officer€normally€may€terminate€herÐ ° Ðinvestigation€when€she€accumulates€facts€that€demonstrateÐ \¬ Ðsufficient€probable€cause.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòForestóó,€___€F.3d€at€___Ð X Ð[slip€op.€at€12];€òòPalhava€de€Varella„Cidóó€v.€òòBoston€Five€CentsÐ ´  ÐSavings€Bankóó,€787€F.2d€676,€680„81€(1st€Cir.€1986).€€The€case€lawÐ ` ° Ðin€other€circuits€is€to€the€same€effect.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòHodgkinsóó€v.Ð  \  ÐòòPetersonóó,€355€F.3d€1048,€1061€(7th€Cir.€2004);€òòBrodnickióó€v.€òòCity€ofÐ ¸  ÐOmahaóó,€75€F.3d€1261,€1264€(8th€Cir.€1996).Ð d´  Ðà ` àThe€rule,€then,€applicable€in€the€wide€mine„run€of€cases,Ð `  Ðis€that€once€a€law€enforcement€officer€unearths€sufficient€facts€toÐ ¼  Ðestablish€probable€cause,€she€has€no€constitutional€duty€either€toÐ h¸ Ðexplore€the€possibility€that€exculpatory€evidence€may€exist€or€toÐ d Ðconduct€any€further€investigation€in€the€hope€of€finding€suchÐ À Ðevidence.€€Because€this€case€is€well€within€the€mine„run,€we€rejectÐ l¼ Ðthe€appellant's€asseveration€that€the€absence€of€a€more€completeÐ h Ðinvestigation€somehow€undercuts€the€district€court's€acknowledgmentÐ Ä Ðof€probable€cause.Ð pÀ  Ðà ` àThis€disposes€of€the€appellant's€four„pronged€attack€onÐ !l" Ðthe€lower€court's€probable€cause€determination.€€Looking€at€theÐ È"$ Ðtotality€of€the€circumstances€known€to€the€police€at€the€time€ofÐ t$Ä& Ðthe€instant€arrest,€we€find€no€fault€with€the€district€court'sÐ  &p!( Ðconclusion€that€probable€cause€existed.Ð Ì'#* Ðà ` àWithal,€our€odyssey€must€continue.€€The€court€below€wentÐ x)È$, Ðon€to€rule€that€the€absence€of€probable€cause€doomed€òòallóó€theÐ $+t&. Ðappellant's€claims.€€The€appellant€assigns€error€to€the€breadth€ofÐ ° Ðthis€ukase.Ð \¬ Ðà ` àThis€assignment€of€error€requires€us€first€to€parse€theÐ X Ðamended€complaint.€€Eight€of€the€counts€are€directed€only€at€AmesÐ ´  Ðand€Powers,€and,€thus,€need€not€concern€us.€€òòSeeóó€òòsupraóó€note€2.€€TheÐ ` ° Ðremaining€nine€counts€allege€the€following€causes€of€action€againstÐ  \  Ðsome€or€all€of€the€municipal€defendants:€€four€counts€based€on€42Ð ¸  ÐU.S.C.€ðð€1983,׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€one€count€based€on€false€arrest,€one€count€based€onÐ d´  Ðgeneral€negligence,€two€counts€charging€inflicting€of€emotionalÐ `  Ðdistress,€and€one€count€based€on€vicarious€liability.ò òó ó€€The€two€mainÐ ¼  Ðsection€1983€claims€were€premised€on€alleged€Fourth€AmendmentÐ h¸ Ðviolations,€ò òó óand€so€the€district€court's€disposition€of€those€countsÐ d Ðwas€clearly€correct.€€Given€probable€cause,€there€was€noÐ À Ðconstitutional€violation€ð"ð€and€without€the€deprivation€of€aÐ l¼ Ðconstitutional€right,€those€claims€cannot€proceed.€€òòSeeóó€òòRocheóó,€81Ð h ÐF.3d€at€254.€€The€false€arrest€count€also€fails€because€a€necessaryÐ Ä Ðelement€of€that€claim€is€an€illegal€arrest.€€òòSeeóó€òòMannóó€v.€òòCannonóó,Ð pÀ  Ð731€F.2d€54,€62€(1st€Cir.€1984)€(construing€Rhode€Island€law).€€InÐ !l" Ðthis€case,€the€existence€of€probable€cause€rendered€the€arrestÐ È"$ Ðlegal.€€By€like€token,€in€the€absence€of€a€false€orÐ t$Ä& Ðunconstitutional€arrest,€the€two€other€section€1983€counts€ð"ð€bothÐ  &p!( Ðof€which€are€failure„to„ò òó ótrain€counts,€òòseeóó€òòsupraóó€note€3€ð"ðÐ Ì'#* Ðnecessarily€founder.€€òòSeeóó€òòEvansóó€v.€òòAveryóó,€100€F.3d€1033,€1040€(1stÐ ° ÐCir.€1996)€(holding€that€a€municipality€cannot€be€liable€forÐ \¬ Ðfailure€to€train€under€ðð€1983€absent€an€underlying€constitutionalÐ X Ðviolation€by€one€of€its€police€officers).Ð ´  Ðà ` àThat€leaves€only€a€motley€of€state„law€tort€counts.€€AÐ ` ° Ðgeneral€negligence€count€requires€a€plaintiff€to€show,€at€a€bareÐ  \  Ðminimum,€a€legally€cognizable€duty€and€a€breach€of€that€duty.€€òòSeeóóÐ ¸  ÐòòMillsóó€v.€òòState€Sales,€Inc.óó,€824€A.2d€461,€467€(R.I.€2003);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóóÐ d´  ÐòòWelsh€Mfg.,€Div.€of€Textron,€Inc.óó€v.€òòPinkerton's,€Inc.óó,€474€A.2dÐ `  Ð436,€440„41€(R.I.€1984).€€Because€the€police€acted€reasonably€inÐ ¼  Ðmaking€their€probable€cause€determination€and€had€no€duty€toÐ h¸ Ðinvestigate€further€before€arresting€the€appellant,€òòseeóó€textòòóó€òòsupraóó,Ð d Ðthe€appellant€has€failed€to€establish€the€essential€elements€of€herÐ À Ðgeneral€negligence€claim.Ð l¼ Ðà ` àThe€emotional€distress€counts€fare€no€better.€€There€hasÐ h Ðbeen€no€demonstration€of€the€"extreme€and€outrageous€conduct"Ð Ä Ðnecessary€to€prevail€on€a€claim€for€intentional€infliction€ofÐ pÀ  Ðemotional€distress.€€òòJalowyóó€v.€òòFriendly€Home,€Inc.óó,€818€A.2d€698,Ð !l" Ð707€(R.I.€2003).€€There€has€been€no€showing€of€the€physicalÐ È"$ Ðsymptomatology€necessary€to€support€a€claim€of€negligent€inflictionÐ t$Ä& Ðof€emotional€distress.€€òòSeeóó€òòReillyóó€v.€òòUnited€Statesóó,€547€A.2d€894,Ð  &p!( Ð899€(R.I.€1988).€€And€as€the€substantive€state„law€counts€topple,Ð Ì'#* Ðso€too€does€the€count€alleging€vicarious€liability.€€òòSeeóó€òòBolandóó€v.Ð x)È$, ÐòòTown€of€Tivertonóó,€670€A.2d€1245,€1248€(R.I.€1996).Ð $+t&. Ðà ` àWe€need€go€no€further.€€While€we€do€not€minimize€theÐ ° Ðunfortunate€nature€of€the€appellant's€experience,€there€is€noÐ \¬ Ðprincipled€way€on€these€facts€to€hold€the€municipal€defendantsÐ X Ðliable€in€damages.€€Consequently,€the€district€court's€entry€ofÐ ´  Ðsummary€judgment€merits€our€approbation.Ð ` ° ÐÌò òòòAffirmedóó.ó ó