Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendants-police officials’ motion for summary judgment in section 1983 action alleging that defendants subjected plaintiff to false arrest on charges of improper lane usage and resisting arrest, as well as used excessive force when arresting plaintiff. Videotape of incident, as well as plaintiff’s concession that he could not recall whether he had used turn signal, were sufficient to create probable cause to arrest plaintiff on improper lane usage charge given officer’s statement that plaintiff had not done so. Moreover, videotape supported officer’s testimony that plaintiff failed to follow officer’s directives to return to his car and failed to cooperate while officer was attempting to pat down plaintiff, which in turn gave officer probable cause to arrest plaintiff on resisting arrest charge. Also, officer’s push of plaintiff on side of car did not amount to excessive force, where: (1) officer could use some amount of force when faced with safety issues; and (2) plaintiff posed safety risk to officer where plaintiff refused multiple commands to return to his car and acted strangely during instant pat down session. Fact that state court dismissed resisting arrest charge did not create triable issue in instant action, where record otherwise showed that officer had probable cause to arrest plaintiff on both charges.