Some of us suspect that this is being fostered by Obots who are trying to get Freepers to make threats about judges.
The Fourth Amendment provides:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The right to security in person and property protected by the Fourth Amendment may be invaded in quite different ways by searches and seizures. A search compromises the individual interest in privacy; a seizure deprives the individual of dominion over his or her person or property. United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113 (1984). The “plain view” doctrine is often considered an exception to the general rule that warrantless searches are presumptively unreasonable,{4} but this characterization overlooks the important difference between searches and seizures.{5} If an article is already in plain view, neither its observation nor its seizure would involve any invasion of privacy. Arizona v. Hicks, [496 U.S. 134] 480 U.S. 321 (1987); Illinois v. Andreas, 463 U.S. 765, 771 (1983). A seizure of the article, however, would obviously invade the owner’s possessory interest. Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 463, 469 (1985); Jacobsen, 466 U.S. at 113. If “plain view” justifies an exception from an otherwise applicable warrant requirement, therefore, it must be an exception that is addressed to the concerns that are implicated by seizures, rather than by searches.