(dissenting).
[¶ 44.] The majority opinion suffers from the same deficiencies as the circuit court’s memorandum opinion — a failure to view the facts and inferences in the light most favorable to Heib. These problems combine to produce two disconcerting results. First, a man who was falsely accused, arrested, and jailed has been denied his right to a jury trial. Second, it destroys our longstanding precedent involving summary judgment.
Standard of Review
[¶ 45.] Our standard of review on summary judgment was, prior to the majority’s decision, “well settled.” Thornton v. City of Rapid City, 2005 SD 15, ¶ 4, 692 N.W.2d 525. The moving party has the burden to show that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Williams v. Vandeberg, 2000 SD 155, ¶ 7, 620 N.W.2d 187. The evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Colonial Ins. Co. of California v. Lundquist, 539 N.W.2d 871, 873 (S.D.1995). All inferences from the evidence must also be viewed in favor of the non-moving party. Thus, “summary judgment requires not only that there be no material facts at issue, but also that there be no genuine issue on the inferences to be drawn from those facts.” St. Onge Livestock Company, Ltd., v. Curtis, 2002 SD 102, ¶ 10, 650 N.W.2d 537 (quoting Mueller v. Cedar Shore Resort, Inc., 2002 SD 38, ¶ 10, 643 N.W.2d 56, 61-62 (emphasis added)); St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co., v. Engelmann, 2002 SD 8, ¶ 15, 639 N.W.2d 192, 199 (“Not only must the facts not be in issue, but also there must be no genuine issue on the inferences to be drawn from those facts”); Wilson v. Great N. Ry. Co., 83 S.D. 207, 157 N.W.2d 19, 21 (1968).
[¶ 46.] Summary judgment was never meant to be a substitute for a trial by jury. Jerauld County v. Huron Regional Medical Center, Inc., 2004 SD 89, ¶ 9, 685 N.W.2d 140, 142. Instead, this Court has recognized that summary judgment is an extreme remedy and should only be grant*890ed “when the truth is clear.” Id. It is inappropriate to affirm a trial court’s grant of summary judgment merely because we might believe the non-moving party would not have prevailed at trial. Wulf v. Senst, 2003 SD 105, ¶ 17, 669 N.W.2d 135, 141.
[¶47.] Probable cause to arrest exists if “the facts and circumstances within their [the arresting officer’s] knowledge and of which they [have] reasonably trustworthy information [are] sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the [suspect] had committed or was committing an offense.” Beck, 379 U.S. at 91, 85 S.Ct. 223. “The principal components of a determination of ... probable cause will be the events which occurred leading up to the stop or search, and then the decision whether these historical facts, viewed from the standpoint of an objectively reasonable police officer, amount to ... probable cause.” Ornelas, 517 U.S. at 696, 116 S.Ct. 1657.
[¶ 48.] In this case, we are reviewing an appeal from summary judgment where the trial court determined that probable cause existed as a matter of law. Probable cause does not lend itself to summary judgment in the context of false arrest and malicious prosecution because it involves application of the “reasonably prudent person standard.” This Court has long held that summary judgment is generally not amenable to such issues.10
[¶ 49.] Other courts distinguish between probable cause in the civil and criminal realm and acknowledge that the issue is generally not appropriate for summary judgment. Justice Kennedy, during his tenure with the Ninth Circuit, wrote:
Our task in determining whether probable cause to arrest existed as a matter of law in this § 1983 action is slightly different from a similar determination in the context of a direct review of a criminal arrest. In the latter situation, we are called upon to review both law and fact and to draw the line as to what is and is not reasonable behavior. We are not always in agreement as to its location, but a line must be drawn. By contrast, in a § 1983 action the factual matters underlying the judgment of reasonableness generally mean that probable cause is a question for the jury, and summary judgment is appropriate only if no reasonable jury could find that the officers did or did not have probable cause to arrest.
McKenzie v. Lamb, 738 F.2d 1005, 1007-1008 (9th Cir.1984). Former Chief Justice Wollman, writing for the Eighth Circuit, noted that the issue of probable cause in a suit for money damages becomes a question of law only when “the facts are not disputed or are susceptible to only one reasonable inference ...” Warren v. City of Lincoln, 864 F.2d 1436, 1439 (8th Cir.1989) (quoting Linn v. Garcia, 531 F.2d 855, 861 (8th Cir.1976)). In another Eighth Circuit decision, the Court affirmed a district court’s denial of summary judg*891ment on the issue of probable cause, stating, “it is settled doctrine that any inferences to be drawn ... must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion ...” Giordano v. Lee, 434 F.2d 1227,1231 (8th Cir.1970).11
[¶ 50.] In this case, the trial court found that one of the undisputed facts supporting summary judgment was that “consistent versions of the offenses [had been] repeatedly provided by all three victims to friends, investigating officers, parents, and medical professionals before Heib’s arrest ...” The trial court mischar-acterizes this statement when it refers to it as “an undisputed fact.” What it is, of course, is an inference the trial court drew based on the underlying facts. Because the court’s inference was made in the light most favorable to the moving party, it was an inappropriate inference for purposes of summary judgment. An examination of the record indicates that the trial court’s inference, in addition to being inappropriate, is simply inaccurate.
[¶ 51.] The majority opinion avoids reconciling the trial court’s improper inference with the record. In fact, the majority opinion concedes that issue by stating that “the evidence was contradictory in several key respects.” The majority opinion continues by writing:
However, those contradictions are not genuine issues of material fact because they are undisputed. And the fact that contradictory inferences can be drawn from these facts does not create a genuine issue of material fact because the question [of] whether probable cause existed is a mixed question of law and fact for the court.
(emphasis added) (citations omitted). Although probable cause is a mixed question of law and fact, it is not always “for the court” when “contradictory inferences can be drawn from [the] facts.”12
[¶ 52.] Having determined the correct standard, whether Lehrkamp was entitled to summary judgment should be viewed with all facts and inferences in the light most favorable to Heib. SDCL 15-6-56(c).
Analysis
[¶ 53.] The three juveniles’ stories were inconsistent. The only thing consistent about their stories was the claim that Wis-ser and an unnamed man committed sexual assaults and then drove them around until about 3:30 P.M. Even their descriptions of how the assault took place were inconsistent.
[¶ 54.] Detective Anderson interviewed the teenaged girl who’s father reported *892this incident to the Sturgis Police. It is undisputed that this girl was the first person that the juveniles spoke to about the alleged rape and kidnapping incident. During the interview, the girl told Detective Anderson that the alleged victims had said that they were driven to Fort Meade, brought into a house, and raped. She also told Detective Anderson that she had been told that one of the alleged victim’s little brother had been “tied up” or held back during the rapes. Although the three juveniles later told authorities they were raped in a car, they were never asked to explain this discrepancy.
[¶ 55.] The juveniles’ descriptions of the unnamed accomplice were also inconsistent. One girl described the accomplice as having “shoulder length brown hair and a heavy brown mustache.” She claimed that he had been wearing a “black Marilyn Manson t-shirt,” “black pants,” and “old black shoes.” The second girl described him as having “reddish shoulder length hair” with “no facial hair.” She did not recall the type of shoes he was wearing. Additionally, she claimed that on the day in question he was wearing a “white shirt” with “blue jeans.” During the interview, the second girl claimed to have gotten sick after being questioned about the different seating arrangements in the vehicle. As a result, Lehrkamp terminated the interview and decided to continue it the following morning.
[¶ 56.] Lehrkamp resumed the interview the following day at 11:00 A.M. He noticed that the second girl brought notes with her. When Lehrkamp inquired about the notes, she commented on a vision she had had the night before:
Lehrkamp: Now the information that you read to us here that you have written down, like I told you before I would like to get that if that’s o.k.
Girl: Yah.
Lehrkamp: Before we leave, alright?
Girl: And I did make a mistake on what that guy was wearing.
Lehrkamp: Oh o.k.
Girl: Cause I had a dream you know.
Lehrkamp: Alright.
Girl: And then I wrote all of it down.
Miraculously, the girl’s story now perfectly matched that of the other two alleged victims’. She described the unnamed suspect as wearing a “black Marilyn Manson t-shirt,” “black pants,” and “old black shoes.” Officer Lehrkamp never questioned her about “the dream” or how her descriptions of the unnamed suspect could change overnight.
[¶ 57.] Todd Heib’s story, on the other hand, remained consistent and corroborated throughout Lehrkamp’s investigation. Wisser told Lehrkamp that he had dropped Heib off at Bob Roush’s house at 7:45 A.M. and that Heib was not with him when he picked up the juveniles. As a result, Lehrkamp sent Detective Anderson to the Roush residence to conduct an interview.
[¶ 58.] Roush told Anderson that Heib had indeed been dropped off at his house at about 8:00 A.M. on the morning in question. Thereafter, Heib and Roush went to McDonald’s for breakfast. Roush then took Heib to the optometrist. Finally, Heib borrowed Roush’s vehicle and went to work at UBC.
[¶ 59.] Detective Anderson contacted Scott Palmer and T.J. Beckman, both UBC employees, who confirmed that Heib had been at work. Beckman told Anderson that he remembered Heib mentioning that he would be running late because of an eye exam. Anderson then acquired Heib’s time card which indicated he started work at 11:30 A.M, went to lunch at noon, and was back at 12:30 P.M. Heib punched out for the day at 3:00 P.M.
*893[¶ 60.] Anderson found Heib’s story to match the accounts given by Roush, Palmer, and Beckman. Based on these interviews, Detective Anderson concluded that “Heib may not be our suspect.” He also recommended to Lehrkamp that Heib’s alibi was something that had to be investigated before an arrest was made.
[¶ 61.] Despite that warning, Lehrk-amp conducted a photo lineup the next day in which two of the three juveniles identified Heib as the unnamed accomplice. Lehrkamp arrested Heib that evening without obtaining a warrant. No further investigation had been conducted concerning Heib’s alibi. Detective Anderson was not involved in Lehrkamp’s decision to arrest Heib.
[¶ 62.] In affirming the circuit court, the majority opinion relies heavily upon the following facts and inferences:
1. That two of the three juveniles picked out Heib from the lineup.
2. That a subsequent interview of Bob Roush, conducted on December 15th, revealed that Heib may not have arrived at Roush’s home until as late as 8:20 A.M.
3. That a supplemental report by Detective Lehrkamp, written on December 22, repeats a claim by one of the juveniles who said the unnamed accessory was “there in the car and then not there.”
4. Inconsistencies and conflicts in the testimony actually bolster credibility.
5. That a reasonable law enforcement officer would expect children to give inconsistent accounts of the same event.
6. That the medical evidence aided in establishing probable cause for the arrest of Heib.
I will address each of the majority opinion’s arguments in turn.
[¶ 63.] 1. The Lineup Identification.
[¶ 64.] The majority opinion relies heavily upon the fact that two out of three juveniles identified Heib from a photo lineup. However, there is a dispute as to whether the two juveniles would have prior reason to know or identify Heib. Lehrk-amp maintains that he had no reason to suspect that the juveniles would be able to recognize Heib prior to the lineup. Heib argues that he was neighbors with two of the three juveniles and that they would easily recognize him from a photograph.
[¶ 65.] An examination of the record supports Heib’s argument. Lehrkamp conducted the photo lineup on December 11th. During an interview on December 10th, Lehrkamp engaged in the following exchange with the second girl:
Lehrkamp: O.k., now, let me ask you this, when it comes to these two guys, if I was to show you a lineup, a photo lineup could you identify em?
Girl: Yes I could.
Lehrkamp: You would be very comfortable on that?
Girl: I would.
Lehrkamp: 0.k., alright and you think you know where this other guy lives? Girl: Yes I do.
Lehrkamp: O.k., um and ah if we need to maybe I will get you and we will go drive around and you can, have you seen this guy living there or something?
Girl: I have seen him in his house, yes.
Lehrkamp: 0.k., but you don’t know who he is?
Girl: No.
Lehrkamp: 0.k., alright so maybe a little bit later we will go and you guys can show me, does [the other girl] know where this guy lives?
Girl: Yes he lives right across the street from her.
*894Lehrkamp: Oh he does?
Girl: Umum.
In addition to the interview transcript, the addresses on record show that Heib lives on the same street as two of the three juveniles.
[¶ 66.] This evidence is contrary to Lehrkamp’s assertion that he had no reason to suspect that the juveniles would have prior reason to know or identify Heib. Indeed, the evidence gives rise to an inference that the only reason two of the three juveniles identified Heib is because they were his neighbors. Therefore, the majority’s confidence in the lineup identification is misplaced.
[¶ 67.] 2. and 3. Subsequent Interview with Roush & Lehrkamp’s Supplemental Report.
[¶ 68.] Probable cause must arise before an arrest is made. Beck, 379 U.S. at 93, 85 S.Ct. 223. Facts learned after the arrest will not retroactively make the arrest lawful. As a result, anything learned by law enforcement subsequent to Heib’s arrest is irrelevant, except that it may tend to show bias or an attempt by Lehrk-amp to cover his actions.
[¶ 69.] Heib was arrested on December 11th. On December 15th, Detective Anderson conducted a second interview with Bob Roush. Roush repeated what he had told Anderson in the prior interview; that Heib arrived at his home around 8:00 A.M. on the day the alleged rapes occurred. However, Anderson notes that after “nailing down times” Bob “admitted it could have been as late as 8:20 A.M. when Heib arrived.” The additional twenty minutes, according to Anderson, could have allowed Heib to commit the crimes at Ft. Meade and return to Roush’s home. Anderson also believed this evidence corroborated a victim’s statement to Lehrk-amp that the unnamed suspect was “there in the car and then not there.”
[¶ 70.] There was no reference to the latter statement in Lehrkamp’s original report. The first time it surfaced was in Anderson’s report of his second interview with Roush. The supplemental report was used to attempt to weaken Heib’s alibi. According to Lehrkamp and Anderson, Heib could have been continually going back and forth to Wisser’s car during the following times:
• First thing in the morning before going to Roush’s
• On the way to his eye appointment
• Just prior to going to work at UBC
• During his one-half hour lunch break
• And between 3:00 P.M. when he left work, until 3:30 when the kids were dropped off at school.
Even if there were evidence to support their theory, it would still be extremely difficult for a reasonable person to accept such possibilities. However, the record is clear that Lehrkamp did not even consider these possibilities before his arrest of Heib.
[¶ 71.] Both of the reports by Anderson and Lehrkamp were made subsequent to Heib’s arrest. Lehrkamp did not mention the unnamed subject coming and going during the day in question. In Anderson’s report on December 9th, he wrote:
At this point in the investigation and based only on what information we had on the incident from the first interviews with the victims, it appeared the unnamed suspect was with Josh from the time the three juveniles were picked up till they were released sometime after 3 A.M.[sic],
On December 10th, Anderson wrote the following about Heib’s alibi:
Both officers (Lehrkamp and Anderson) decided that we needed to find out for sure if Heib would remain a suspect. A photo lineup was decided to be the best way.
*895[¶ 72.] Heib was arrested after two of the three juveniles identified him from the lineup. None of Heib’s alibi witnesses were interviewed again until December 15th. One juvenile stated in her initial interview, that for a moment she remembered not being able to see the unnamed suspect. However, all of them stated that he accompanied them to Piedmont immediately after the alleged rapes.
[¶ 73.] The majority opinion notes that law enforcement should not have to investigate every claim of innocence. However, probable cause is concerned with probabilities. In the present case, Lehrkamp went out of his way to conjure every possible way Heib could be guilty, no matter how remote or irrational and even continued to cover and rationalize his actions after he arrested Heib. Lehrkamp only presented to the grand jury those facts and inferences that supported his spin on the events and failed to present the facts and inferences that detracted therefrom in Heib’s favor. In fact, Lehrkamp continues to maintain that nothing went wrong with his investigation and that Heib should have been prosecuted.
[¶ 74.] 4. Inconsistent & Conflicting Stories Bolster Credibility.
[¶ 75.] There are three major problems with the majority opinion’s bewildering statement that conflicting accounts of the same event bolstered the juvenile’s credibility.13
[¶ 76.] First, this statement is an inference that is made in favor of Lehrkamp, the moving party. It was therefore inappropriate and contrary to law.
[¶ 77.] Second, even assuming this inference to be true, it ignores the fact that the second girl changed her story overnight. If identical stories “lead one to conclude” they are “rehearsed,” Lehrkamp should have reached that conclusion on the morning of December 11th. Indeed, the second girl’s story was initially inconsistent and then she had a “dream” that provided consistent descriptions of the unnamed suspect. She brought written notes to the interview that provided an identical description to what her co-accusers said the prior day. If her story on the 10th was inconsistent and credible, then her consistent story on the 11th should have been determined to be incredible.
[¶ 78.] Finally, the majority opinion’s inference conflicts with Lehrkamp’s own admission. In his deposition, Lehrkamp gave the following answer to a hypothetical by Heib’s counsel:
Counsel: If A says something different than B and those statements are inconsistent, what does that tell you? Lehrkamp: That there’s a problem.
[¶ 79.] 5. Inconsistencies on Account of Age
[¶ 80.] The majority opinion claims that it is reasonable for police officers to accept conflicting testimony from children. In support of its holding it cites Rankin v. Evans, 133 F.3d 1425, 1442 (11th Cir.1998). Rankin is factually inapposite. In Rankin, the victim was a three-year-old girl. The present case involves three middle school students. Certainly we can expect middle school students to tell more consistent stories than three year olds. Moreover, the inconsistency in Rankin dealt only with the time of the alleged assault. Id. at 1443 fn. 22. The present case involved inconsistencies as to both the identity of the perpetrator, and how the assaults occurred. Finally, the court in Rankin held it was reasonable for the *896police officer to overlook the inconsistency because he had “formal training” and “extensive practical experience in child abuse cases.” Id. There is nothing in the record that demonstrates that Lehrkamp has similar qualifications.14
[¶ 81.] 6. Medical Evidence
[¶82.] The majority opinion spends a considerable amount of time explaining the results of the rape examinations. Specifically, one doctor noted that sexual contact was probable; the other doctor believed it was “fairly likely.” This was fairly strong evidence that a crime had been committed with these juveniles. However, it failed to provide probable cause that it was Heib who committed the crime, (emphasis added). No semen, hair samples, or fabric samples gathered as a result of these tests pointed to Heib.15 In fact, it was later determined that the juveniles were lying to cover up their activities while skipping school.
Conclusion
[¶ 83.] After viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Heib, a reasonable jury could find that Lehrkamp did not have probable cause for arrest. Each inconsistent fact or statement creates a genuine issue of material fact. We should reverse the grant of summary judgment and remand for a jury trial.
[¶ 84.] MEIERHENRY, Justice, joins this dissent.
. In Satterlee v. Johnson, we noted that:
Summary judgment is generally not feasible in negligence cases because the standard of the reasonable man must be applied to conflicting testimony ... it is only when the evidence is such that reasonable men can draw but one conclusion from facts and inferences that they become a matter of law and this occurs rarely. 526 N.W.2d 256, 258 (S.D.1995) (quoting Lamp v. First Nat. Bank of Gairetson, 496 N.W.2d 581 (S.D.1993)); See also Wilson v. Great Northern Railway Co., 83 S.D. 207, 157 N.W.2d 19, 22 (S.D.1968) (Noting that summary judgment is appropriate on issues of contributory negligence and the reasonable person standard only in the “extraordinary, unusual, or rare case where the facts are conceded or demonstrated beyond reasonable question and show a right to summary judgment with such clarity as to leave no room for controversy.”)
. See also Brewer v. Fischer, 144 Neb. 712, 14 N.W.2d 315, 318 (1944) (Probable cause in a malicious prosecution action is a question for the jury when "reasonable minds could differ on the facts proved”); Harmon v. Redding, 135 Ga.App. 124, 218 S.E.2d 32, 33 (1975) (Probable cause in a malicious prosecution case is always a question for the jury unless it is "obvious” to the court it does or does not exist); Kimbrough v. Giant Food Inc., 26 Md.App. 640, 339 A.2d 688, 693 (1975) (When facts are disputed or more than one inference can be drawn, issue of probable cause must be submitted to the jury); Parkin v. Cornell University, 78 N.Y.2d 523, 577 N.Y.S.2d 227, 230, 583 N.E.2d 939 (1991) ("Probable cause is a question of law to be decided by the court only where there is no real dispute as to the facts or the proper inferences to be drawn from such facts”).
. The majority opinion continued in what seemed to be an attempt to "hedge its bet” by writing, "even if there were a dispute over facts relevant to probable cause, it will not preclude a finding of probable cause as a matter of law so long as the finding survives after adopting the plaintiff's version of the disputed facts for which there is some support in the record.” (citing Cervantes v. Jones, 188 F.3d 805, 811 (7th Cir.1999)) (overruled on other grounds). Cervantes, however, does not stand for the proposition that reasonable inferences can be made against the non-moving party in an appeal from summary judgment, nor am I aware of any case that does.
. It should be noted that the majority opinion seems to have a problem with consistency as well. At one point it says that the inconsistencies made the children more believable. However, later they state that they "agree the changes caused the children’s credibility to dimmish.”
. It should also be noted that Rankin is procedurally inapposite to this case. Rankin was an appeal from a judgment not withstanding the verdict rendered in favor of the defendant. The district court in Rankin had the opportunity to sit through an entire trial and listen to the credibility of the witnesses. Because the present case is an appeal from summary judgment, the circuit court did not have a similar opportunity.
. The majority opinion also points to the girls’ consistent description of Wisser. While this may have provided probable cause to arrest Wisser, it does little to justify the arrest of Heib.