To determine whether probable case for an arrest exists, the Court must “ask whether an objectively reasonable officer could conclude that the historical facts at the time of the arrest amount to probable cause.” Cortez v. McCauley, 478 F.3d 1108, 1116 (10th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). Probable cause exists if, “based on the totality of the circumstances” and “reasonably trustworthy information” within the arresting officer’s knowledge, the facts are sufficient to “lead a reasonable officer to believe that the person about to be arrested has committed or is about to commit a crime.” Id. Police officers “may not ignore easily accessible evidence,” and must interview readily available witnesses and make a basic investigation. Id. at 1117 (internal quotation and citation omitted) (<HOLDING>); see also BeVier v. Hucal, 806 F.2d 123,
holding that hearsay evidence is considered valuable evidence in testing probable cause to 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 a police officer had probable cause to arrest an alleged shoplifter based upon the uncorroborated report of a single security guard and stating that when an officer has received information from some person  normally the putative victim or eye witness  who it seems reasonable to believe is telling the truth he has probable cause holding that an officer did not have probable cause to make an arrest for child abuse based on uncorroborated hearsay statements of a twoyearold when the officer could have interviewed witnesses and considered physical evidence and a medical diagnosis and failed to do so holding that although jury found officer not to have had probable cause for arrest officer was entitled to immunity because law was not clearly established as to circumstances in which officer found himself