and convict black men without regard to the existence of probable cause” cannot withstand a motion for summary judgment. See D.R. v. Middle Bucks Area Vocational Tech. Sch., 972 F.2d 1364, 1377 (3d Cir.1992) (citing Robinson v. McCorkle, 462 F.2d 111, 113 (3d Cir.1972)). Further, to recover under § 1985(3), Mills was also required to demonstrate that he was “in .1993) (noting that elements of malicious prosecution under Pennsylvania law require a plaintiff to show that legal proceedings were instituted without probable cause). Mills’s claims for assault and battery must likewise fail because the existence of probable cause privileged both Blasko and Bair to use reasonable force to arrest Mills. Groman v. Township of Manalapan, 47 F.3d 628, 634 (3d Cir.1995); Renk, 641 A.2d at 293-94 (<HOLDING>). And finally, nothing about the conduct of
recognizing that police officers may use reasonable force to make a lawful arrest holding that an officer may search a suspects vehicle incident to a lawful arrest holding that an officers use of force against a plaintiff was objectively reasonable considering the force the plaintiff herself exercised in resisting police custody recognizing that the fourth amendment protects against the use of excessive force by police officers in carrying out an arrest holding that compliance with an officers orders is a material fact when deciding whether the officers use of force was reasonable