1482-83 (2d Cir.1992) (whether officers have valid authority to arrest pursuant to state law affects constitutionality of the arrest); Ross v. Neff, 905 F.2d 1349, 1353-54 (10th Cir.1990) (arrest executed outside of the officer’s jurisdiction violates the Fourth Amendment and gives rise to a potential § 1983 action); and United States v. Trigg, 878 F.2d 1037, 1041 (7th Cir.1989) (custodial arrest is constitutional if arresting officer had probable cause and authority under state or municipal law to effect a custodial arrest for the particular offense) with United States v. Bell, 54 F.3d 502, 504 (8th Cir.1995); (“[W]e do not think Fourth Amendment analysis requires reference to an arrest’s legality under state law.”); Fields v. City of South Houston, 922 F.2d 1183, 1189 (5th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); and Street v. Surdyka, 492 F.2d 368, 372-73
holding that the existence of probable cause is a complete defense to a  1983 claim alleging false arrest holding that in a  1983 action issue of probable cause is for the jury holding that probable cause is a complete defense to an action for false arrest holding that there is no  1983 cause of action for false arrest unless the arresting officer lacked 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