First, probable cause is assessed at a different moment in time than for a false arrest claim. Lombardi v. Myers, 14-cv-1687 (VAB), 2016 WL 4445939, at *4 (D. Conn. Aug. 18, 2016) (citations omitted); Coll v. Boisvert, 12-cv-1202 (JCH), 2014 WL 508694, at *8 (D. Conn. Feb. 5, 2014). But this distinction turns out to be immaterial in this case, because there was no evidence that Tinsley received additional information bearing on probable cause between the time of the arrest and the time he initiated charges against J.M. Goff v. Chivers, 15-cv-722 (SALM), 2017 WL 2174404, at * 14 (D. Conn. May 17, 2017) (where police arrested suspect for violation of § 53a-167 during roadside stop, transported suspect to state police barracks, and then charged suspect, a lack of probable cause at the time of the arrest was also a lack of probable cause at the time of prosecution because there was no evidence that the police gathered additional information before charges were filed).
For a malicious prosecution claim, the existence of probable cause is assessed in light of the facts known or reasonably believed at the time the criminal proceedings began, not at the time of arrest. See Coll v. Boisvert, 2014 WL 508694, at * 8 (D. Conn. Feb. 5, 2014)("Probable cause to prosecute is distinct from probable cause to arrest and is assessed in light of the facts known or reasonably believed at the time the prosecution was initiated, as opposed to at the time of the arrest.")(internal quotation marks and citations omitted); Lombardi v. Myers, 2016 WL 4445939, at * 4 (D. Conn. Aug. 18, 2016)("In the context of a malicious prosecution claim, a plaintiff must show that the defendants lacked probable cause to prosecute, not just to arrest.
"Probable cause to prosecute is distinct from probable cause to arrest and is assessed in light of the facts known or reasonably believed at the time the prosecution was initiated, as opposed to at the time of the arrest." Coll v. Boisvert, No. 3:12CV01202(JCH), 2014 WL 508694, at *8 (D. Conn. Feb. 5, 2014) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Here, the Court has already determined that Chivers did not have probable cause to arrest plaintiff Gibson for Interfering with an Officer.