114 F.3d 181, 184 (11th Cir.1997) (“In order to be immune from a Fourth Amendment claim, an officer need not have actual probable cause but only ‘arguable probable cause,’ i.e., the facts and circumstances must be such that the officer reasonably could have believed that probable cause existed.”). See also Jones v. Cannon, 174 F.3d 1271, 1283 n. 3 (11th Cir.1999). Thus, the court must examine “ ‘whether reasonable officers in the same circumstances and possessing the same knowledge as [deputies Smith and Forehand] could have believed that probable cause existed’” for the strip search and concomitant detention. Swint v. City of Wadley, 51 F.3d 988, 995 (11th Cir.1995) (quoting Von Stein v. Brescher, 904 F.2d 572, 579 (11th Cir.1990)); see also Anderson, 483 U.S. at 641, 107 S.Ct. 3034 (<HOLDING>). Applying these principles, the fact-specific
holding abuse of discretion is the proper standard for reviewing award of attorney fees in patent cases although questions of law may in some cases be relevant holding that alleged misconduct by public officials particularly by law enforcement officials is matter of public concern recognizing that it is inevitable that law enforcement officials will in some cases reasonably but mistakenly conclude that probable cause is present and  that in such cases those officials  should not be held personally liable recognizing that the exhaustion requirement is relaxed in such cases recognizing that the right to be present can be waived in noncapital felony federal cases