had been holding and waving a machete at individuals; (2) Crocker saw Johnson running in the area for unknown reasons; and (3) a machete knife was recovered from Clark, a friend of Johnson’s who had been with Johnson and who had fled the scene. Even viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Johnson, the credible identification of Johnson as the person who had attempted robbery and who had waved a machete at others, coupled with the Clark’s possession of a machete, was sufficient to establish probable cause to arrest Johnson. Because Crocker had probable cause to arrest Johnson, the false imprisonment and malicious prosecution claims fail as a matter of law. See Groman v. Township of Manalapan, 47 F.3d 628, 636 (3d Cir.1995) (false imprisonment); Estate of Smith, 318 F.3d at 521 (<HOLDING>). The fact that the criminal charges were
recognizing tennessee law requires the absence of probable cause to maintain a malicious prosecution claim holding that the plaintiff must show that there was a lack of probable cause for the criminal prosecution holding the same for malicious prosecution holding that malicious prosecution plaintiff must show inter alia that criminal proceeding was initiated without probable cause holding that a necessary element for malicious prosecution under virginia law is lack of probable cause