context: In any event, at a minimum, Detective Kanehl is entitled to qualified immunity.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 202 F.3d 625, 634
citation_a.parenthetical: stating that in the context of a qualified immunity defense, the defending officer need only show "arguable" probable cause
citation_a.sentence: See Martinez v. Simonetti, 202 F.3d 625, 634 (2d Cir.2000) (stating that in the context of a qualified immunity defense, the defending officer need only show “arguable” probable cause); see also Boyd, 336 F.3d at 76 (stating that “[a]rguable” probable cause exists “if police officers of reasonable competence could disagree as to whether there was probable cause”).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 336 F.3d 76, 76
citation_b.parenthetical: stating that "[a]rguable" probable cause exists "if police officers of reasonable competence could disagree as to whether there was probable cause"
citation_b.sentence: See Martinez v. Simonetti, 202 F.3d 625, 634 (2d Cir.2000) (stating that in the context of a qualified immunity defense, the defending officer need only show “arguable” probable cause); see also Boyd, 336 F.3d at 76 (stating that “[a]rguable” probable cause exists “if police officers of reasonable competence could disagree as to whether there was probable cause”).