{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02549342105263158, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.405263157894737, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Search and Seizure Ceilings

Searches and seizures—the most intrusive forms of policing—should be subject to both case-specific and categorical restraints. Particularized suspicion has long supplied the former. As for the latter, we propose that police should also be required to adhere to budgetary ‘ceilings’: aggregate limits on the volume of searches and seizures that may occur over a given period of time. 
 
Ceilings would vindicate two bedrock limits on police power. The first is constitutional. Viewed in light of its historical paradigm case—the abolition of general warrants—the Fourth Amendment does not merely impose a (procedural) cause requirement on police; it also, we argue, outlines a (substantive) vision of limited police capacity. Ceilings can help to enforce that vision. The second principle is democratic oversight. Ceilings would directly express political will about the proper level of intrusive policing—the balance favored by different communities reflecting tradeoffs between the benefits and harms of police activity. Operating in tandem with suspicion requirements, ceilings can shore up the ideal of ‘democratic policing,’ offering a policy lever resilient to technological change.