With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to him or her to determine whether that affirmative defense applied. Holman, 564 F.3d at 230 (quoting Radich, 886 F.2d at 1396). More broadly, courts in this Circuit have consistently held that once an officer establishes probable cause for an arrest, that officer need not undertake further investí- gation in order to validate the probable cause the officer has already found. See, e.g., Cooper v. City of Philadelphia, 2015 WL 619619, at *5 (E.D.Pa.2015) (“Where an officer has established probable cause, however, he is ‘not required to undertake an exhaustive investigation in order to validate the probable cause that, in his mind, already existed.’ ”) (quoting Merkle v. Upper Dublin School Dist., 211 F.3d 782, 790 (3d Cir.2000)); Stetser v. Jinks, 2013 WL 3791613, at *3 (E.D.Pa.2013) (<HOLDING>). Fellow district courts in this Circuit have

A: holding that once probable cause is established officer is not required to investigate further
B: holding that where other evidence established probable cause to believe that the defendant possessed controlled substances investigating officers had probable cause to search the defendants purse for similar evidence
C: holding that police officers have no affirmative duty to search out favorable evidence for the defendant
D: holding that police officers have no duty to further investigate once they determine that probable cause has been established including investigating any exculpatory evidence
D.