unlawful seizures. See U.S. Const, amend. IV; see also Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 610-11, 95 S.Ct. 2254, 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975) (Powell, J., concurring) (“[TJechnical violations of Fourth Amendment rights [occur] where [ ] officers in good faith arrest an individual in reliance on a warrant later invalidated or pursuant to a statute that subsequently is declared unconstitutional.”). Although Vives’s Fourth Amendment rights as well as his rights under the New York Constitution and New York common law were violated, he is not necessarily entitled to damages for the wrongful arrest. Before he can recover such damages, Vives must first establish that the arresting officers lacked good faith and probable cause. See Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 557, 87 S.Ct. 1213, 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967) (<HOLDING>). Probable cause to arrest exists “when the
holding that the existence of probable cause is a complete defense to a  1983 claim alleging false arrest holding that the defense of good faith and probable cause is available to officers in common law actions for false arrest and imprisonment as well as in actions brought pursuant to section 1983 holding that claims for false arrest and imprisonment under  1983 accrue at the time of the arrest holding that probable cause is a complete defense to an action for false arrest recognizing the defense of good faith and probable cause in  1983 case involving unconstitutional warrantless arrest