limits in which the officer is empowered to act, when a report has previously been made that the vehicle has been stolen or a complaint has been filed and a warrant thereon issued charging that the vehicle has been embezzled.” Reading the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court finds that there is a material issue of fact as to whether Officer Faulk possessed the authority to impound the motorcycle based on the stolen vehicle report. A stolen vehicle report was made, which may give Officer Faulk the authority to impound the motorcycle without a warrant. However, Officer Faulk’s declaration shows that he was aware that the allegedly stolen vehicle was part of a contract dispute between private parties. See Allen v. City of Portland, 73 F.3d 232, 238 (9th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). The fact that Officer Faulk knew that the
holding that a dispute regarding payment of a restaurant bill does not give rise to probable cause to arrest holding that in the absence of a prior indictment probable cause for arrest is determined by the facts in the sworn complaint holding that there was no probable cause to arrest the plaintiff because the facts of the case amounted to a contract dispute holding that there is no  1983 cause of action for false arrest unless the arresting officer lacked probable cause holding that the plaintiff must show that there was a lack of probable cause for the criminal prosecution