With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". S.Ct. 854 (citation omitted). Contrary to what its name might seem to suggest, probable cause “demands even less than ‘probability,’ ” United States v. Moore, 215 F.3d 681, 685 (7th Cir.2000) (quoting United States v. Burrell, 963 F.2d 976, 986 (7th Cir.1992)); it “requires more than bare suspicion but need not be based on evidence sufficient to support a conviction, nor even a showing that the officer’s belief is more likely true than false.” Id. at 686 (citation omitted). Applying this standard, we have consistently held that an identification or a report from a single, credible victim or eyewitness can provide the basis for probable cause. See Tangwall v. Stuckey, 135 F.3d 510, 520 (7th Cir.1998); Hebron, 18 F.3d at 422; Gramenos v. Jewel Cos., Inc., 797 F.2d 432, 439 (7th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>) (citation omitted). In this case, the evidence

A: holding a warrantless arrest by a law officer is reasonable under the fourth amendment where there is probable cause to believe that a criminal offense has been or is being committed
B: holding that an officer did not have probable cause to make an arrest for child abuse based on uncorroborated hearsay statements of a twoyearold when the officer could have interviewed witnesses and considered physical evidence and a medical diagnosis and failed to do so
C: holding that a police officer had probable cause to arrest an alleged shoplifter based upon the uncorroborated report of a single security guard and stating that when an officer has received information from some person  normally the putative victim or eye witness  who it seems reasonable to believe is telling the truth he has probable cause
D: holding that a warrantless arrest does not violate the fourth amendment if at the time of the defendants arrest police had probable cause to believe that an offense has been is being or will be committed
C.