{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015482695810564663, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.3526011560693645, '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}}
Perquisition and lifting of objects and documentary evidence

Since the application of precautionary measures necessarily involves the implication of an authority who accomplishes it into a person’s home, even against that person’s will, in order to identify and evaluate the belongings found, or to confiscate it if necessary, it is imposed conclusively that the legislator- within the limits of the Constitution-empowered the authorities invested with such an attribution with the right to enter the house of those to whom the precautionary measure is to be applied, legally ordered. Thus, it would lead to the unacceptable conclusion according to which the authority applying the precautionary measure is presenting itself without the prosecutor's authorization at the residence of the person to whom it is to be applied, as the law does not provide for such an authorization- in case of resistance to entering the residence, the authority will have to interrupt the application of the measures until the authorization is obtained, thereby jeopardizing the efficiency of the enforcement measure.