court to address in the first instance. Accepting the plaintiffs version of the contested facts, the magistrate judge did not err in finding that it would have been clear to a reasonable officer at the time that it would be objectively unreasonable to use physical force to stop plaintiffs moving motorcycle from leaving the parking lot. C. Arrest “Whether probable cause exists depends on the reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the facts known to the arresting officer at the time of the arrest.” Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146, 125 S.Ct. 588, 593, 160 L.Ed.2d 537 (2004) (citing Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 371, 124 S.Ct. 795, 157 L.Ed.2d 769 (2003)). It does not depend on the officer’s subjective motivation or his stated reason for making the arrest. Id. at 594, 125 S.Ct. 588 (<HOLDING>). For the reasons stated above, we do not
holding that the subjective reason for making the arrest need not be the criminal offense as to which the known facts provide probable cause 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 an officers subjective reason for making an arrest need not include the criminal offense that later establishes probable cause holding that there was no probable cause to arrest the plaintiff because the facts of the case amounted to a contract dispute holding that when an arrest is properly supported by probable cause as to any offense neither the officers subjective reliance on an offense for which no probable cause exists nor his verbal announcement of the wrong offense vitiates the arrest