With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". was unable to establish a foundation for his federal claims because he could not demonstrate Officer Ahlm’s conduct violated a constitutional right. See Grubbs v. Bailes, 445 F.3d 1275, 1278 (10th Cir.2006). The conclusion was threefold. First, Mr. Titus’s malicious prosecution claim failed because “Officer Ahlm possessed probable cause to believe that Mr. Titus had been operating his vehicle while intoxicated to the slightest degree,” even after determining Mr. Titus had only a .02% breath alcohol concentration (BAC). Aplt. App. at 131. Second, Mr. Titus’s retaliatory prosecution claim failed because Mr. Titus did not plead and prove the absence of probable cause for charging him with DWI. See id. at 137; Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250, 265-66, 126 S.Ct. 1695, 164 L.Ed.2d 441 (2006) (<HOLDING>). And third, to the extent Mr. Titus asserted a

A: holding that the plaintiff must show that there was a lack of probable cause for the criminal prosecution
B: holding that the plaintiff must show that the person instituting or maintaining the prosecution lacked probable cause for bringing the action
C: holding that a plaintiff in a retaliatory prosecution action must plead and prove the absence of probable cause for pressing the underlying criminal charge
D: holding that a malicious prosecution plaintiff must show inter alia that the criminal proceeding was initiated without probable cause
C.