Officer Denbow There are two federal claims against thé Windham defendants. The primary one is that there was no probable cause for the arrest initiated by Officer Denbow. But the plaintiff does not contend that the witness statements Officer Denbow had received, if believable, failed to provide probable cause; the plaintiffs argument is that Officer Denbow should not have believed them and should have done more investigation to test the credibility of these witness statements. I find no support for that proposition. See, e.g., United States v. Bonilla Romero, 836 F.2d 39, 46 (1st Cir.1987) (noting that probable cause does not require police officers to investigate every possibility of innocence and doing so burdens public safety); Kelley v. Myler, 149 F.3d 641, 646-47 (7th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); Ricciuti v. N.Y.C. Transit Authority, 124
holding that although jury found officer not to have had probable cause for arrest officer was entitled to immunity because law was not clearly established as to circumstances in which officer found himself holding that once probable cause is established officer is not required to investigate further holding that there is no  1983 cause of action for false arrest unless the arresting officer lacked probable cause holding that police officers have no duty to further investigate once they determine that probable cause has been established including investigating any exculpatory evidence holding that once probable cause was established the officer was not required to investigate whether the person arrested was a victim acting in selfdefense or the aggressor in a domestic violence situation