in original) (citations omitted) (quoting United States v. Patane, 304 F.3d 1013, 1018 (10th Cir. 2002), rev’d on other grounds, 542 U.S. 630, 124 S.Ct. 2620, 159 L.Ed.2d 667 (2004))). As for the suggestion that Defendants were obliged to contact Plaintiffs physician, such a requirement goes beyond the holdings of Cortez, Lusby, and Baptiste, each of which required officers to interview readily available witnesses or otherwise review readily available exculpatory evidence. See Cortez, 478 F.3d at 1117 (“[Wlitnesses were readily available for interviews. ... Defendants, however, did not ... interview the girl [who may have been molested by the arrestee], her mother, the nurse, or the doctor.... In other words, Defendants conducted no investigation.”); Baptiste, 147 F.3d at 1259 (<HOLDING>); Lusby, 749 F.2d at 1431 (faulting officer for
holding that officers could not rely on security guards statements that arrestee had shoplifted where easily accessible video showed their account was inaccurate holding that the trustee could not avoid a security interest under section 549 when that security interest was authorized by the bankruptcy court holding an insurer has a right to rely on statements made in an insurance application holding that statements not protected where the defendants had no basis for their optimistic statements and already knew allegedly that certain risks had become reality holding that where defendants failed to present rebuttal evidence the court was allowed to rely on the psrs finding that their false statements significantly impeded the investigation