Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): immunity from a civil suit for damages, a court must first determine whether a prosecutor has performed a quasi-judicial function. Imbler, 424 U.S. at 430, 96 S.Ct. 984. If the action was part of the judicial process, the prosecutor is entitled to the protection of absolute immunity whether or not he or she violated the civil plaintiffs constitutional rights. See Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 242, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974) (“Implicit in the idea that officials have some immunity — absolute or qualified — for their acts, is a recognition that they may err. The concept of immunity assumes this and goes on to assume that it is better to risk some error and possible injury from such error than not to decide or act at all.”); see also Kalina, 522 U.S. at 129, 118 S.Ct. 502 (<HOLDING>); Imbler, 424 U.S. at 431, 96 S.Ct. 984 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that challenges to an arrest warrant are not jurisdictional (B) holding that a police officer who secures an arrest warrant without probable cause cannot assert an absolute immunity defense (C) holding that a prosecutors preparation and filing of an information and a motion for an arrest warrant are protected by absolute immunity (D) holding that a prosecutors filing of an arrest warrant and charging documents are protected by absolute immunity (E) holding that prosecutors have absolute immunity
Output (English): holding that a police officer who secures an arrest warrant without probable cause cannot assert an absolute immunity defense