Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendants-police officials’ motion for summary judgment in section 1983 action alleging that defendants lacked probable cause to support their demand that plaintiff submit to breathalyzer test or to arrest him on charge of possessing open container of alcohol in vehicle after said test revealed no alcohol on his breath. Defendants had reasonable grounds to believe that defendant had been drinking while driving his car where three credible witnesses told them that they saw defendant drink from what looked to be vodka bottle while driving his car, and where defendants observed what looked to be bottle containing alcohol in front seat of defendant's car. Fact that defendant passed field sobriety test did not require different result, and case law was conflicting at time of instant breathalyzer test as to whether defendants needed search warrant to conduct said test. Moreover, Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to plaintiff’s malicious prosecution claim on open-container charge where: (1) bottle in front seat of plaintiff’s car looked like opened liquor bottle that contained clear liquid; and (2) defendants did not know that said bottle did not contain alcohol until one month after issuance of citation.