[Alex3917]

> The principle at play here goes way back into common law, and was most famously articulated in the 1700s as "the public is entitled to every man's evidence".

One of the big drivers behind the American revolution was John Wilkes' diaries being seized by the government in 1763. This was done with a legal warrant, but it's still the reason why we have the 4th amendment today. So the idea that we have a tradition of the government being able to seize whatever they want with a warrant isn't entirely accurate.

[tptacek]

That's an interesting argument. What historically have been the exceptions to what the government can seize with authorization from a judicial warrant?

The "every man's evidence" principle isn't just an English thing; it's been repeatedly confirmed by the Supreme Court, it's baked into our rules of evidence, and can easily be read out of both the text of the 4th Amendment and the actual actions of the framers once they actually put the Constitution into action.

The Wilkes thing in particular is a little more complicated than you're acknowledging, though I think you must know much more about it than I do. The warrant the King used against Wilkes was a general warrant, the kind the 4th Amendment was intended to forbid: those "warrants" were like a cross between a search warrant and eminent domain, allowing the government unrestricted access to all the property and possessions of its target. They were instruments of harassment, and their unpopularity was definitely a driver for the revolt.

[Alex3917]

> What historically have been the exceptions to what the government can seize with authorization from a judicial warrant?

I don't know that there are many exceptions once you have a warrant, but there is definitely a preference to use subpoenas when possible.

(I'll note though that I probably don't know more about this, most of my knowledge just comes from reading Jeffrey Rosen books on privacy law.)