for clear error and review de novo its conclusion about whether the Fourth Amendment was violated during the search.” United States v. Janis, 387 F.3d 682, 686 (8th Cir.2004) (citation omitted). Under this standard, “we must affirm the district court’s decision on a suppression motion unless it is not supported by substantial evidence on the record; it reflects an erroneous view of the applicable law; or upon review of the entire record, [we are] left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” Id. (internal quotation omitted). “In our circuit, resistance to an illegal arrest can furnish grounds for a second, legitimate arrest.” United States v. Schmidt, 403 F.3d 1009, 1016 (8th Cir.2005); see, e.g., United States v. Dawdy, 46 F.3d 1427, 1431 (8th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). “When a defendant commits a new and distinct
holding a defendants response to even an invalid arrest  may constitute independent grounds for arrest holding invalid warrant did not create probable cause for arrest holding that the courts determination of whether an officer had probable cause for an arrest is an independent and objective determination and an officers own subjective reason for the arrest is irrelevant holding that claims for false arrest and imprisonment under  1983 accrue at the time of the arrest holding avoiding arrest is not the same as resisting arrest