In Hamilton v. City of San Diego (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 838, the plaintiffs were arrested and booked on robbery charges after a police officer interviewed the victim and found her credible. According to the victim restaurant owner, the plaintiffs had robbed her at gunpoint; the plaintiffs contended to the contrary that they had refused to pay for inedible food. After the criminal charges were dismissed, the plaintiffs brought an action against the city and certain police officers alleging, in part, a claim for false arrest and imprisonment. At trial, the plaintiffs presented evidence that the victim had involved the police when other patrons had similarly refused to pay. (Id. at pp. 841-842.) Reversing the trial court's denial of a motion for nonsuit, the court stated: "In our view once probable cause for the Hamiltons' arrest existed, any nonfeasance Officer Martinez may have been guilty of in investigating the crime did not alter the protection provided by Penal Code section 847." (Id. at p. 844.) The court elaborated that, pursuant to Penal Code section 847, "we find no duty of further investigation once probable cause has been established." (Hamilton v. City of San Diego, supra, at p. 846, fn. omitted.) Noting that any liability against the city or the officer would need to be based on more than nonfeasance, the court concluded that the officer's failure to investigate to confirm the plaintiffs' version of the events amounted only to a lack of diligence and not affirmative misconduct giving rise to liability. (Id. at pp. 846-847.)