the area of Lot 22 where McDermott was standing did not appear to be posted with any signs. McD. Dep. at 21, 35; Cox Aff. ¶ 3. McDer-mott continued to claim ownership and a right to be on the property. When McDermott refused to leave, Cox asked the dispatcher to call Farley to inquire whether he wanted to have Plaintiff arrested. When the dispatcher reported back that Farley did, there is no indication that Cox was acting under authorization from a rightM property owner to convey a lawful order for Plaintiff to leave the premises. The evidence shows that Cox apparently concluded, based only on Farley’s initial complaint about the car and Cox’s own observation of “No Trespassing” signs, that Plaintiff did not have any right to be present on the subject prope 123, 128 (2d Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>)). Although officers are permitted to make
holding police are not required to explore and eliminate every potentially plausible claim of innocence as part of their prearrest investigation holding that police officer was not required to eliminate every theoretically plausible claim of innocence before effectuating arrest for animal cruelty holding police officer is a public official holding that police officer is not required to explore and eliminate all theoretically plausible claims of innocence holding that petitioners challenge to jury instructions in light of some new cases did not demonstrate his actual innocence because petitioner only asserts legal innocence not actual innocence