when a prosecutor acts as a complaining witness in support of a warrant application. (Citations omitted.) The Sixth Circuit also follows the “functional approach” in deciding whether a prosecutor is entitled to absolute immunity. For example, in Cady v. Arenac County, 574 F.3d 334 (6th Cir.2009), plaintiff alleged that a county prosecutor violated his constitutional rights by conditioning a plea on plaintiffs agreement not to bring a civil action against the people who plaintiff was charged with assaulting. While the condition was questionable, and perhaps a First Amendment violation, the Sixth Circuit dismissed the complaint on grounds of absolute immunity: “[Pjrosecutors are absolutely immune from liability under § 1983 for their conduct ... insofar as that conduct is intimatel 86) (<HOLDING>); Heidelberg v. Hammer, 577 F.2d 429, 432 (7th
holding that a prosecutors alleged use of perjured testimony the nondisclosure of exculpatory information  conflict of interest problems and  spy allegations are all related to the acts of an advocate and thus come within the area of prosecutorial immunity holding that the court must consider the adequacy of the inquiry into the conflict the extent of the conflict and the timeliness of the motion holding that absolute immunity applies to claims of perjured testimony holding that a prosecutors preparation and filing of an information and a motion for an arrest warrant are protected by absolute immunity holding that the constitution does not encompass a general right to nondisclosure of private information