With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". is-not that the affidavit fails to “articulate ... the basis for [Brannan’s] belief’ or that it was merely “eonelusory.” Kelly, 21 F.3d at 1555. Rather, the court understands the Plaintiffs to be saying that Brannan intentionally falsified, or recklessly made, his affidavit so that it does, on its face, establish probable cause. Cases which have discussed the arguable probable cause standard have not been concerned with alleged lies by the affiant officer. In Lowe, for example, there was “no dispute as to the facts in the possession of [the defendant police officers] at the time of the issuance of the search warrants.” Id. at 1569. The question was whether those facts constituted arguable probable cause to pursue a warrant against the Plaintiffs. Id.; see also Swint, 51 F.3d at 996 (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs have not even attempted to show

A: holding that search warrant for tavern and its bartender did not permit body searches of all bars patrons
B: holding that there was not arguable probable cause to conduct extensive searches on night club and its patrons where only evidence was of one patron selling drugs
C: holding that qualified immunity applies only if an officer had arguable probable cause to arrest
D: holding that consent searches do not require probable cause to justify the search of a home
B.