whether-officer's-deviations-from-policy-vitiated-probable-cause

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. The Panel found arguable probable cause to arrest and prosecute petitioner for the felony of sexual abuse in the first degree under New York law without addressing whether under State law the arresting officer’s admitted deviations from state policy and procedure in investigating this offense vitiated any probable cause to arrest petitioner. Does this result square with the Court’s jurisprudence that courts must look to the “totality of the circumstances” in assessing probable cause and consider those facts available to the officer at the time of the arrest and immediately before it? 2. Where the issue of a police officer’s immunity derives from a common core of operative facts so that review of the State law claims for false arrest and malicious prosecution is necessary to insure meaningful review of the same federal claims, was the Panel obligated to exercise its pendent jurisdiction to address whether under State law the arresting officer’s admitted deviations from state policy and procedure in investigating this offense vitiated any probable cause to arrest petitioner?