With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of Abrams’ arguments. See Gorbitz v. Corvilla, Inc., 196 F.3d 879, 882 (7th Cir.1999). Abrams admitted under oath at his state trial that he (1) repeatedly disobeyed Walker; (2) attempted to flee the scene once Walker informed him that he was going to be cited; (3) retrieved the knife Walker had taken from Abrams’ car; and (4) interrupted and delayed Walker’s traffic stop of Forte. The undisputed facts and reasonable inferences therefrom plausibly drawn from the entire record serve to establish that Walker arrested Abrams for his conduct, not for his speech. Appellee Walker asks this Court to rule that the existence of probable cause is a complete defense to a First Amendment retaliation claim in the context of an arrest. See Curley v. Village of Suffern, 268 F.3d 65, 73 (2d Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); Redd v. City of Enterprise, 140 F.3d 1378,

A: holding that the existence of probable cause for an arrest is a complete defense to a first amendment retaliation claim under the doctrine of qualified immunity
B: holding that the existence of probable cause vitiated the need for an inquiry into an underlying motive for the arrest
C: holding that the courts determination of whether an officer had probable cause for an arrest is an independent and objective determination and an officers own subjective reason for the arrest is irrelevant
D: holding that probable cause is a complete defense to an action for false arrest
B.