With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". New York law, false arrest is considered to be a species of false unlawful arrest, the determination of whether probable cause existed must be made on the basis of the information possessed or reasonably available to the defendant at the time of the arrest. See Lowth v. Town of Cheektowaga, 82 F.3d 563, 570 (2d Cir.1996), It is, therefore, axiomatic that subsequently discovered evidence cannot be used to cure an arrest that was made without probable cause. Cf. People v. Gomcin, 265 A.D.2d 493, 495, 697 N.Y.S.2d 93, 95 (2d Dep’t 1999) (search incident to arrest) (“[I]t is beyond cavil that the fruit of a search incident to an arrest cannot be used to establish probable cause to arrest.”); cf. also Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 16-17, 68 S.Ct. 367, 370, 92 L.Ed. 436 (1948) (<HOLDING>). B. Malicious Prosecution under § 1983 and New

A: holding that consent searches do not require probable cause to justify the search of a home
B: holding that reasoning which would justify the arrest by the search and at the same time justify the search by the arrest  will not do
C: holding that the searehincidenttoalawfularrest rule does not apply to a warrantless search that provides the probable cause for the subsequent arrest because one cannot justify the arrest by the search and then simultaneously justify the search by the arrest
D: holding that while search incident to arrest could not justify search in that case probable cause plus exigency justified search
B.