not to have another person’s coerced statement used against him in an affidavit for an arrest warrant. See id. The distinction between Buckley and Clanton is the use of the improperly obtained statements. In Buckley, the witness’s coerced testimony was presented at trial. The court held that the prosecutor was absolutely immune from an action for damages under § 1983 under Imbler. See 20 F.3d at 795. In Clanton, on the other hand, the police used another person’s coerced confession in an affidavit to obtain an arrest warrant for Clanton. 129 F.3d at 1151. In using a coerced statement in this manner, the court held in Clanton that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity. See id. at 1159; see also Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 343, 106 S.Ct. 1092, 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986) (<HOLDING>). Here, the only use of the improperly obtained
holding that a judge was not entitled to absolute immunity for firing an employee holding that a police officer who secures an arrest warrant without probable cause cannot assert an absolute immunity defense holding that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity holding selsky not entitled to absolute immunity holding that an officer applying for a warrant without probable cause may be entitled to qualified immunity but is not entitled to absolute immunity