(explaining that the issue of probable cause to arrest should be decided by the court “when there is no genuine issue of material fact”) (citation omitted). Next, Defendants contend that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Officer “O’Brien decided to arrest Plaintiff on the mere basis that she ‘needed to be responsible for taking care of (her) child,’ ” or because Officer “O’Brien arrested Plaintiff for abandonment or abuse of a child based on ... the ‘unclean and unhealthy conditions’ of her apartment.” The Court finds that this is not a material factual dispute because the subjective reason why Officer O’Brien arrested Plaintiff is irrelevant to the question of whether Officer O’Brien had probable cause to arrest Plaintiff. See Keylon, 535 F.3d at 1219-20 (<HOLDING>) (citation omitted). The Court notes that there
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 probable cause is a complete defense to an action for false arrest holding that officer had probable cause to arrest for violation of ordinance and that officers failure to cite ordinance either orally or in his arrest report was irrelevant 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 holding that an officers subjective reason for making an arrest need not include the criminal offense that later establishes probable cause