Prior to consulting with Holder, Hall determined that he had probable cause to arrest Scarbrough and Davis based on three factors: (1) each had sold him an unlawful Nike pendant, (2) in his opinion, the price of the pendants was below what he would have expected a similar, legitimate item to cost,
and (3) numerous other sellers were engaged in selling trademark-infringing items near Scarbrough and Davis.
The fact that the pendants that Scarbrough and Davis sold to Hall infringed Nike's trademark was confirmed by Holder and is undisputed. Significantly, all that is required for qualified immunity to be applicable to an arresting officer is “
arguable probable cause to believe that a person is committing a particular public offense,”
Redd v. City of Enterprise, 140 F.3d 1378, 1384 (11th Cir.1998); “that is, where ‘reasonable officers in the same circumstances and possessing the same knowledge as the Defendants could have believed that probable cause existed to arrest’ the plaintiffs,”
id. at 1382 (citation omitted).
See Jones, 174 F.3d at 1283 n. 3 (“Arguable probable cause, not the higher standard of actual probable cause, governs the qualified immunity inquiry.”).