607 (6th Cir.1999), and Harris v. Bornhorst, 513 F.3d 503 (6th Cir.2008). In both cases, we affirmed the denial of absolute immunity to prosecutors who counseled on the legality of an arrest or who instructed police to arrest a suspect. See Prince, 198 F.3d at 615; Harris, 513 F.3d at 510-11. The comparison collapses, however, when scrutinized under the Ohio Rules of Juvenile Procedure. Those rules provide only for the issuance of a summons requesting that a party appear and answer the allegations in the complaint. See Ohio R. Juvenile P. 15. Unlike an arrest warrant, a summons requiring a defendant to appear and answer charges in court does not alone constitute an arrest, or even a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. See DePiero v. City of Macedonia, 180 F.3d 770, 789 (6th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); Burg v. Gosselin, 591 F.3d 95, 101 (2d
holding that a traffic ticket that required a plaintiff to appear at hearing and answer to charges was not a seizure holding that defense counsels failure to appear at hearing was excusable neglect where secretary accidentally identified the hearing as cancelled holding that the requirements inherent in the criminal process  that the accused submit to processing and appear in court as required  are sufficient restraints on liberty to constitute a seizure holding that the defendants oral promise to appear was insufficient to amount to a required appearance within the meaning of the failure to appear statute holding that where answer omits certain formalities required by the rules of procedure it does not render the answer ineffective so as to entitle the plaintiff to a default judgment