even where there was a trial subsequent to an alleged Miranda violation. Burrell v. Virginia, 395 F.3d 508 (4th Cir.2005). The court specifically noted, however, that the claimant had expressly excepted any trial action from his allegations. Id. at 513 n. 4. Therefore, neither of these precedents answer the question as to the claimant here. There clearly was a “criminal case” against Bellamy, so his allegations are beyond the holding of Chavez. Bellamy does allege that the inculpatory and arguably compelled statements were used against him at trial, thereby putting his case beyond the holding of Burrell. Thus, neither the Supreme Court nor the Fourth Circuit have answered this question. Courts elsewhere are split on the answer. See, e.g., Hannon v. Sanner, 441 F.3d 635 (8th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); McKinley v. City of Mansfield, 404 F.3d 418,
holding that chavez supports the view that a law enforcement officers violation of miranda cannot be grounds for a  1983 action holding that a city may not be held liable under  1983 where there was no underlying constitutional violation by any of its officers holding that in a  1983 action issue of probable cause is for the jury holding that  1983 does not provide a remedy if there is no violation of federal law holding that section 1983 actions based on violation of the fourth amendment may not rest on violation of state law