With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". F.3d 781, 786-87 (3d Cir.2000) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). If the police lacked probable cause to arrest Gresh, he could also have a claim for false imprisonment. See Groman v. Manalapan, 47 F.3d 628, 636 (3d Cir.1995). According to Gresh, the police officer defendants knowingly made false statements in the warrant applications. In particular, Gresh suggests that the witness whose identification of him was used to support probable cause for the burglary arrest retracted that identificatio al search and seizure of his automobile. In order to recover co car based on a named witness’s statement that she had seen Gresh carry electronic equipment from the burglary victims’ home to his vehicle. Cf. Merkle v. Upper Dublin School District, 211 F.3d 782, 790 (3d Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). We agree with the District Court that Gresh

A: holding that knowledge of a credible report from a single credible eyewitness can be sufficient to demonstrate probable cause for a warrantless arrest
B: holding probable cause exists based upon information received from a reliable eyewitness
C: holding that warrantless arrest based on probable cause did not violate the fourth amendment
D: holding  1983 action lies for warrantless arrest without probable cause
A.