The Court concludes that, on these facts, Cox had no probable cause to justify Plaintiffs arrest. The Court further finds that no reasonable officer could have concluded that arrest of McDermott was proper in the circumstances. Although an officer is not required to follow every lead to determine that a suspect may be innocent before making a probable cause determination, an officer must have more than reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. See, e.g. Borlawsky v. Town of Windham, 115 F.Supp.2d 27, 29-30 (D.Me.2000) (citing United States v. Bonilla Romero, 836 F.2d 39, 46 (1st Cir.1987) (noting that probable cause does not require police officers to investigate every possibility of innocence and doing so burdens public safety); Kelley v. Myler, 149 F.3d 641, 646-47 (7th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); Ricciuti v. N.Y.C. Transit Authority, 124
holding that police officers have no duty to further investigate once they determine that probable cause has been established including investigating any exculpatory evidence 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 holding that there is no  1983 cause of action for false arrest unless the arresting officer lacked probable cause holding that once probable cause was established the officer was not required to investigate whether the person arrested was a victim acting in selfdefense or the aggressor in a domestic violence situation holding that once probable cause is established officer is not required to investigate further