demonstrations for study and future publication is always a fact to be considered and in circumstances other than those at bar, might well be conclusive or persuasive in providing an innocent explanation that precludes a probable cause finding. 22 . It is also well-settled that probable cause to arrest is distinct from probable cause to prosecute. See Williams ex rel. Allen v. Cambridge Bd. of Educ., 370 F.3d 630, 638 (6th Cir.2004) ("An arrest grounded in probable cause does not become invalid merely because the State chooses not to prosecute the individual or a jury opts for acquittal.”); Posr v. Court Officer Shield #207, 180 F.3d 409, 417 (2d Cir.1999) (distinguishing probable cause to arrest from probable cause to prosecute); Ireland v. Tunis, 113 F.3d 1435, 1449-50 (6th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); Williams v. Kobel, 789 F.2d 463, 468-69 (7th
holding that warrantless arrest based on probable cause did not violate the fourth amendment holding that a state courts finding that the prosecutor did not have probable cause to go forward with the charges did not necessarily mean that probable cause to make the initial arrest was lacking holding that under fourth amendment standards for determining probable cause for arrest and probable cause for search and seizure are same holding invalid warrant did not create probable cause for arrest holding that probable cause existed to arrest for trespassing under state law