The opinion
DENNIS, Circuit Judge,
concurring separately.
I respectfully concur in the judgment. The majority reached the right result in granting qualified immunity to the defendant. I disagree with the district court opinion adopted by the majority in two respects.
First, the plaintiffs claim of a Fourth Amendment violation can be analogized to the situation in United States v. Certain Real Property Located near Highway 195, 163 F.3d 1295 , 1298-301 (11th Cir.1998), which supports the appellant’s position that a seizure of real property occurred. While I believe a seizure occurred, I nevertheless agree with the majority in granting qualified immunity to the defendant, because, under the circumstances, seizure was not objectively unreasonable.
Second, I disagree with the majority in that the defendant probably did violate Fourteenth Amendment rights as the plaintiff alleges, but I agree with the majority in granting qualified immunity, be *644 cause those rights were not clearly established at the time of the violation.