case against Keo-say, and Lauters as a prosecutor in the CINA proceeding. A prosecutor’s ability to seek absolute prosecutorial immunity has been long-established in the common law. The United States Supreme Court has specifically extended the common law doctrine of prosecutorial immunity to Section 1983 damages suits for alleged civil rights violations, insofar as the prosecutor’s conduct is performed to initiate prosecution or to carry the case through the judicial process. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430-31, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976). On the other hand, prosecutors may not utilize the cloak o 4, 114 L.Ed.2d 547 (1991) (presenting evidence at probable cause hearing in support of a motion for a search warrant); Ireland v. Tunis, 113 F.3d 1435, 1443 (6th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); Esteves v. Brock, 106 F.3d 674, 677 (5th
holding that a state prosecutor is shielded by absolute prosecutorial immunity when he decides to bring forth criminal charges seeks an arrest warrant or presents documents to a judicial officer recognizing that absolute immunity is immunity from charges of either constitutional or statutory violations holding that a police officer who secures an arrest warrant without probable cause cannot assert an absolute immunity defense holding that the considerations underlying absolute prosecutorial immunity at common law dictate the same absolute immunity under  1983 holding that a prosecutors filing of an arrest warrant and charging documents are protected by absolute immunity