Griego alleges such a claim, see Complaint ¶¶ 44-52, 12-13, and it is not the same thing as a claim seeking redress for, in itself, an officer’s failure to properly investigate an alleged crime. The case law that exists is unkind even to the failure-to-investigate theory for making out a false-arrest claim; there is no case law supporting an independent failure-to-investigate claim. “[T]he failure to investigate a matter fully, to exhaust every possible lead, interview all potential witnesses, and accumulate overwhelming corroborative evidence rarely suggests a knowing or reckless disregard for the truth.' To the contrary, it is generally considered to betoken negligence at most.” Stonecipher v. Valles, 759 F.Sd 1134, 1142 (10th Cir.2014). See Romero v. Fay, 45 F.3d 1472 (10th Cir.) (<HOLDING>). In domestic-violence situations in
holding that a defendants statement that he did not want to talk about what he did the night before but was willing to talk about lighter subjects was not an unequivocal invocation of his right to remain silent in part because the defendant previously exhibited willingness to talk with police holding that the failure to interview and present alibi witnesses who would have supported the defendants version of events was prejudicial holding that officers not required to investigate arrestees alibi witnesses before arresting him holding that officers failure to talk to asserted alibi witnesses did not constitute a violation of the defendants constitutional rights holding the failure to call alibi witnesses promised during opening statement was not ineffective assistance of counsel