doubts as to the victim’s veracity.’ ” Fulton v. Robinson, 289 F.3d 188, 195 (2d. Cir.2002) (quoting Singer, 63 F.3d at 118); see also Martinez v. Simonetti 202 F.3d 625, 634 (2d Cir.2000). Moretti acted based on a sworn complaint that alleged several crimes against plaintiff. Before Moretti arrested plaintiff, she first verified the existence of an Order of Protection and reviewed the alleged threatening emails sent to DeQuatro. Plaintiff argues Moretti should have recognized the emails to be fakes, sent by someone else under plaintiffs email address. The law, however, does not require Moretti to be an expert nor that Moretti investigate every potential explanation or scenario as plaintiff seems to argue. See Ricciuti v. New York City Transit Auth., 124 F.3d 123, 128 (2d Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). All the law requires is that an officer have
holding that a claim must be facially plausible in order to survive a motion to dismiss holding that petitioners challenge to jury instructions in light of some new cases did not demonstrate his actual innocence because petitioner only asserts legal innocence not actual innocence holding that police officer is not required to explore and eliminate all theoretically plausible claims of innocence holding that police officer was not required to eliminate every theoretically plausible claim of innocence before effectuating arrest for animal cruelty holding police are not required to explore and eliminate every potentially plausible claim of innocence as part of their prearrest investigation