at the preliminary hearing, testifying that “she observed a person, but not his face, as he exited [the victims’ home].” Importantly, however, there is no indication that the witness equivocated in her initial identification of Gresh, or that the police had any reason to doubt her statement when submitting the arrest warrant application. To the extent that Gresh alleges that he was falsely arrested for the drug offenses, his claim also is without merit. There was probable cause to support the arrest warrant based on a police affidavit describing the drugs and drug paraphernalia found in Gresh’s automobile. Furthermore, because the police had probable cause to arrest Gresh, his malicious prosecution claims must fail. See, e.g., Estate of Smith v. Marasco, 318 F.3d 497, 521 (3d Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). Gresh also seeks damages for an allegedly
holding that a necessary element for malicious prosecution under virginia law is lack of probable cause holding the same for malicious prosecution recognizing tennessee law requires the absence of probable cause to maintain a malicious prosecution claim holding that a malicious prosecution plaintiff must show inter alia that the criminal proceeding was initiated without probable cause holding that the plaintiff must show that there was a lack of probable cause for the criminal prosecution