is absent. Officers “need not conduct a ‘mini-trial’ before making an arrest. ...” Id. at 650. Clayborn suggests a number of ways the officers may have investigated further, such as viewing video surveillance footage, making a timeline of her activities at the mall, further discussion with mall security, or a search of her wallet. The officers had no duty to conduct further investigation once they had (arguable) probable cause to arrest. See Amrine v. Brooks, 522 F.3d 823, 832 (8th Cir.2008) (“As probable cause is determined ‘at the moment the arrest [is] made,’ any later developed facts are irrelevant to the probable cause analysis for an arrest.”) (quoting United States v. Rivera, 370 F.3d 730, 733 (8th Cir.2004)); Matthews v. City of E. St. Louis, 675 F.3d 703, 707 (7th Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>). Clayborn’s other cases are not persuasive.
holding defendant was improperly denied potentially exculpatory evidence holding that once probable cause is developed officers have no constitutional obligation to conduct further investigation in the hopes of uncovering potentially exculpatory evidence holding that once probable cause is established officer is not required to investigate further holding that the state has no affirmative duty to seek out and gain possession of potentially exculpatory evidence holding that police officers have no duty to further investigate once they determine that probable cause has been established including investigating any exculpatory evidence