whether the defendant officers tainted the grand jury’s deliberations. V. Under established circuit law, Buehler had the burden of affirmatively showing that the grand jury’s deliberations were tainted, and failed to do so. The judgment' is AFFIRMED. 1 . Snider claims that he acted to stop the passenger from texting and talking on her cell phone, which officers are trained to prevent because dangerous individuals could be summoned to the location of the traffic stop. 2 . Having dismissed all of Buehler’s federal claims, the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims. See 2 r. 1993) (rejecting the argument that a grand jury indictment insulated police officers from false arrest claims); cf. McClellan v. Smith, 439 F.3d 137, 145 (2d Cir. 2006) (<HOLDING>). But see Evans v. Chalmers, 703 F.3d 636, 647
holding invalid warrant did not create probable cause for arrest holding that probable cause is a complete defense to an action for false arrest holding that the dismissal of an indictment did not negate the presumption of probable cause holding that because there was probable cause for arresting plaintiff plaintiffs claims whether under section 1983 or new york state law that were predicated on false arrest or false imprisonment compelled dismissal holding under new york law that a grand jury indictment does not create a presumption of probable cause for false arrest claims