I would assure the arresting officer that his "probable cause" was VALID...
And many officers would immediately take this as an admission of guilt and press even harder. There are times when a suspect is subjected to intense interrogation for several hours (I call this “being grilled”). While it is borderline unconstitutional, it still happens. But that’s OK, if the “cop’s instinct” shows the suspect guilty.
Some juries do take their responsibility seriously. Others don’t By the tone of many posters here on this thread, the officer’s accusation is all that is needed for a guilty verdict.
I seriously doubt any experienced officer would.. the fact is it would have the opposite effect.. it would show the officer that you are being coopertive and understand and respect his role.
IN FACT... in many cases I have had to explain to a coopertive suspect what actions raised the "probable cause" flag.. not only that, I often tell a suspect that personally I am not convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt" that he is guilty, but that based on the "probable cause" rule I have to make a decision whether to arrest you or not.. often a coopertive suspect "explaining" their actions BEFORE a physical arrest takes place results in NO ARREST at all.. but I still write a report and in my report I simply state that the suspects explaination raised doubt of "probable cause"... not only that.... it shows the officer that you are NO "resisting arrest" in fact you WELCOME the arrest, if the officer really thinks his "probable cause" is that strong after your "explaination".....
HOWEVER, on the other hand.. if a person is not coopertive.... "resisting arrest"... etc.., I would be very likely to go with the physical arrest, even with the "weak" probable cause... and let the jury decide.....
David