124 F.3d 123, 128 (2d Cir.1997). Moreover, the Seitzes rely heavily on the fact that Mr. Seitz told the Investigators that he was not depicted in the February 12 surveillance footage; he identified a small patch of hair under his mouth in his appearance on both February 10 and February 16 that was not present in the February 12 footage. The Seitzes allege that it was objectively unreasonable for the Investigators to ignore this exculpatory evidence. That is not, however, a proper legal conclusion. Although further action by DeQuarto and Andryshak might have spared Mr. Seitz arrest in this case, the police are under no obligation to investigate claims of innocence, even when the suspect alleges that his or her innocence is based on mistaken identity. See Panetta, 460 F.3d at 395-96 (<HOLDING>). Indeed, “a mistaken identity can provide the
holding the fact that officers belief proved to be mistaken does not negate a finding of probable cause holding that the dismissal of an indictment did not negate the presumption of probable cause holding that under fourth amendment standards for determining probable cause for arrest and probable cause for search and seizure are same holding that inconsistencies that are not sufficient to negate the showing of probable cause raise issues which are appropriate for determination at full trial in the requesting country holding that a suspects ability to proffer an innocent explanation for the facts does not negate probable cause