… While we construe disputed facts in the non-moving parties’ favor, we may not infer bad motive absent even a scintilla of material fact supporting that inference.”); Wilson v. Russo, 212 F.3d 781, 788 (3d Cir. 2000) (“In applying the reckless disregard test to assertions, we have borrowed from the free speech arena and equated reckless disregard for the truth with a ‘high degree of awareness of the statements’ probable falsity.'” (alteration omitted)); Kelly v. Curtis, 21 F.3d 1544, 1554-55 (11th Cir. 1994) (denying qualified immunity for false statement that a substance was cocaine, where plaintiff produced evidence that the officer had received a lab report stating that it was not); see also United States v. Finley, 612 F.3d 998, 1002 (8th Cir. 2010) (“[T]he applicable test is … whether, viewing all of the evidence, the affiant must have entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his statements or had obvious reasons to doubt the accuracy of the information he reported.”)