malicious prosecution context to establish probable cause to bring charges. See, e.g., Liles v. United States, 638 F.Supp. 963, 967-68 (D.D.C.1986); Higgason v. Stephens, 288 F.3d 868, 877 (6th Cir.2002); Schneider v. City of Redmond, 2007 WL 2155805, at *1 (D.Or., July 23, 2007); Crocker v. City of Kingsville, 2006 WL 2092441, at *1, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51410, at *4 (S.D.Tex. July 26, 2006). 5 . Other Circuits have adopted approaches similar to that of the Second Circuit in White v. Frank. For example, in Hand v. Gary, the Fifth Circuit ruled that even though the grand jury had returned an indictment, government officials’ malicious actions tainted the finding of probable cause. 838 F.2d 1420, 1426-27 (5th Cir.1988). See also Hinchman v. Moore, 312 F.3d 198, 202-03 (6th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); Harris v. Roderick, 126 F.3d 1189, 1198 (9th
recognizing tennessee law requires the absence of probable cause to maintain a malicious prosecution claim holding that a determination of probable cause does not bar a state law malicious prosecution claim where the claim is based on the police officers supplying false information to establish probable cause holding that a necessary element for malicious prosecution under virginia law is lack of probable cause holding that the police officers had probable cause to make a warrantless entry recognizing that an arrest based on probable cause cannot be the basis of a claim for false arrestimprisonment