One aspect of this post is wrong: the majority did not hold that the only avenue of relief from the officer's conduct was the Fourth Amendment. The short per curiam opinion explicitly reaches the Fifth Amendment issue, but concludes that the officer is immune because the law was not "clearly established." Only four judges (Judge Jones, joined by Judges Smith, Clement, and Owen) think the Fourth Amendment provides the exclusive means of relief in this case. In fact, the block quotation regarding interchangeability is taken from Judge Jones's concurrence.