elicited further details about Mr. Vogt’s possession of the knife. The complaint adds that the Hays police chief then requested a criminal investigation of Mr. Vogt and furnished incriminating statements to investigators, which led to use of the incriminating statements in a probable cause hearing. Taking these allegations as true, we conclude that Mr. Vogt adequately pleaded that Hays had started a chain of events that resulted in -violation of the Fifth Amendment. See Stoot v. Everett, 582 F.3d 910, 926-27 (9th Cir. 2009) (concluding that a police officer, who allegedly coerced statements, may incur liability under § 1983 for violation of the Fifth Amendment when a prosecutor used those statements in a criminal case); McKinley v. Mansfield, 404 F.3d 418, 436-39 (6th Cir. 2005) (<HOLDING>). B. Mr. Vogt adequately pleaded that the Fifth
holding that where a defendant expressly manifested his belief in the truth of the statements contained in the motion to dismiss thereby adopting those statements as his own such statements are admissible against the defendant in the states case in chief holding that a plaintiff may bring a  1983 action alleging a violation of fifth and fourteenth amendment rights to be free from police coercion in pursuit of a confession even though statements were not used against him at trial holding rule 16 does not apply to oral statements other than statements of the defendant holding that witness statements in police report inadmissible holding that police officers can incur  1983 liability for allegedly coercing a suspect to make selfincriminating statements even though it was another person the prosecutor who used the statements in a criminal case