With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". On appeal, Mr. Brooks renews his arguments in support of his malicious prosecution claim, stating the deputies’ false statements tainted the entire investigative and probable cause process. The deputies argue in support of the district court’s grant of summary judgment and point out Mr. Brooks’s public defender conceded in his deposition that sufficient information existed to establish probable cause of weapon possession, even absent the deputies’ statements. As the district court held, to support his malicious prosecution claim Mr. Brooks must show that, absent the deputies’ alleged misrepresented statements, the government lacked probable cause to charge him with weapon possession or to seek a weapon sentence enhancement. See Grubbs v. Bailes, 445 F.3d 1275, 1278 (10th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). In this ease,, even if the deputies had not

A: holding that the existence of probable cause in a  1983 case is a jury question
B: holding if hypothetically correcting the misrepresentation or omission would not alterthe determination of probable cause the misconduct was not of constitutional significance and is not actionable under  1983
C: holding that a determination of probable cause does not bar a state law malicious prosecution claim where the claim is based on the police officers supplying false information to establish probable cause
D: holding that in a  1983 action issue of probable cause is for the jury
B.