With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 119 (1996); Morrison v. United States, 491 F.2d 344, 346 (8th Cir.1974) (officers are not required to “conduct a mini trial” before making an arrest). Probable cause is to be determined upon the objective facts available to the officers at the time of the arrest. See id. At the time of appellees’ arrest in this case, the officers had, at least, arguable probable cause to conclude that Smithson and his son Ryan had committed an assault. Even if this were a mistaken belief the officers would still be entitled to a qualified immunity defense. See Malley, 475 U.S. at 341, 106 S.Ct. at 1096. Accordingly, we conclude that Stanley and Aldrich are entitled to qualified immunity on appellees’ Fourth Amendment false arrest claim. See Hannah v. City of Overland, 795 F.2d 1385, 1389 (8th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). B. Due Process Appellants Stanley and Aldrich

A: recognizing the defense of good faith and probable cause in  1983 case involving unconstitutional warrantless arrest
B: holding that in a  1983 action issue of probable cause is for the jury
C: recognizing that warrantless arrests with probable cause do not give rise to  1983 claims
D: holding that arrest made with probable cause and without excessive force does not give rise to iied claim
C.