[brief] The [...] are Entitled to Qualified Immunity  “There are two related but distinct inquiries in a qualified immunity case.  One is whether the defendant’s conduct violated the plaintiff’s civil rights; the other is whether the right in question was clearly established at the time of the violation. ”  *Schneyder v. Smith*, 653 F.3d 313, 318 (3d Cir. 2011).  “The court may address the steps in either order. ”  *Pearson v. Callahan*, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009).  With respect to the second prong, for purposes of the pending appeal, the [...] concede that the right of an individual to be free from arrest *without* probable cause was a clearly established right when this incident took place on February 20, 2020.  The [...] likewise concede that an individual’s right to be free from physical force when *not* resisting arrest by the police was clearly established at the time of the incident.  Turning to the first prong, the undisputed factual record shows that the [...] did not violate Plaintiff’s civil rights when they arrested him and they are entitled to qualified immunity.  Here, [...] and [...] clearly had probable cause and are entitled to qualified immunity.  As evidenced by the BWC video and the documentary record, the officers observed Plaintiff in the early morning hours in a location which had experienced motor vehicle burglaries.  Plaintiff was observed moving a backpack from a green Jeep into a black Jeep.  The officers approached Plaintiff and explained that they were making an inquiry due to the rash of motor vehicle burglaries in that area.  Plaintiff tentatively claimed that one of the vehicles belonged to someone named “[...],” but did not provide a last name.  When asked for identification, Plaintiff said that he left it at a nearby tavern, the [...], which was certainly a peculiar explanation.  Plaintiff also had two knives in his pockets.  The backpack which Plaintiff placed into the black Jeep was not visible to the officers because he had placed it under the floorboard.  The officers began to further investigate the matter.  As evidenced by the BWC video, both officers were professional and non-confrontational.  Yet, Plaintiff became agitated and began crying and sat down on the ground.  Plaintiff would not give the keys to the officers and he became irate and uncooperative.  The Plaintiff suddenly tried to pull away from the officers and run away.  The officers were able to keep hold of Plaintiff’s arm, but he resisted arrest, screamed and would not comply.  The officers had to strike Plaintiff to gain physical control and were ultimately able to handcuff him after a scuffle which lasted about three minutes.  There was an outstanding warrant for Plaintiff due to his failure to pay child support.  Pa038.  Plaintiff’s backpack contained marijuana and a tablet of methamphetamine.  After a trial in municipal court, Plaintiff was found guilty of: (1) obstruction of justice in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1(a); and (2) resisting arrest in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2(a)(1).  Pa153-Pa154 (T5:17-T6:4).  Under all the facts and circumstances, particularly the fact that Plaintiff said that he had no identification, carried two knives and attempted to flee, it is evident that the [...] acted reasonably and complied with the case law.  Consequently, the summary dismissal should be affirmed.