Harris has not tried to rebut by showing that the grand jury proceedings (or any other aspect of the indictment) were irregular. And cases interpreting Ohio law in analogous circumstances confirm that the officers had probable cause to believe that Harris knowingly attempted to cause physical harm by pushing Officer Harrison. See, e.g., Palshook v. Jarrett, 120 F.Supp.2d 641, 649 (N.D.Ohio 2000); Stillwell v. City of Xenia, No.2000CA-41, 2001 WL 127880, at *4, 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 573, at *11-12 (Ohio Ct.App. Feb.16, 2001) (noting that “evidence existed to support a criminal assault charge” under Ohio law when plaintiff “intended to and did strike [the officer] in the chest with both hands”); Matlock v. Ohio Dep’t of Liquor Control, 77 Ohio Misc.2d 13, 665 N.E.2d 771, 773, 775 (1996) (<HOLDING>); cf. Hopkins v. City of Westland, 21 F.3d 427
holding that the opening of a makeup bag was justified when a woman had grabbed the bag when the officer turned away had resisted it being taken from her the bag felt heavy her companion had been armed the previous day and the officer and individual were alone holding that defendant adequately indicated to officers that she sought assistance of counsel when she stated that she wanted to call her lawyer and officer testified that request was unambiguous holding that a plaintiff could not show that she engaged in protected activity because she did not present evidence that she informed her employer that her complaints were based on race or age discrimination holding that excited utterance was proven when evidence showed that a patrol officer saw the victim screaming and waiving her hands when he approached she was crying her dress was ripped and she asked the officer to keep the defendant away from her holding that plaintiff did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that her arrest for assault under  290313 was unlawful or that her prosecution was malicious when she grabbed the officer from behind the officer pushed her away and she then grabbed the officers shirt