The New Professionalism

A lot of people are talking about the drug raid on a Maryland mayor (that’s just two, trust me, there are more).  The raid where the cops shot the mayor’s dogs, pretended to have a no-knock warrant, and now admit that it is a possibility that the drugs were supposed to be intercepted en route by a hidden party, having nothing to do with the actual targets of the raid.  A few have brought up the fact that this conduct is not covered by the Exclusionary Rule, and that Justice Scalia has stated that a “new professionalism” on the part of the nations police force is sufficient safe guard.

The idea that we are protected by some sort of New Professionalism is so flabbergasting that I’m nearly at a loss for words.  To have it espoused by a Conservative makes it more so, into the realm of dishonesty.

Much of classic liberal economics and conservatism in the U.S. is predicated on the belief that individuals are rationally self-interested, that they will take action to improve their lot in life.  I’m behind that, nearly 100%.  So let’s break this down like a fraction.

Constitutional limits prevent police officers from doing certain things.  The police could search every home they like, whenever they like, and they would certainly catch a good many criminals.  Of course, we’d rather they didn’t do that, and the Constitution renders it illegal.  If and when the police make an illegal search, the evidence gets thrown out.

So a rational police officer will avoid making an illegal search; why bother obtaining evidence that you can’t use?  But now, according to Justice Scalia, we don’t need to exclude the evidence, a police officer will be a professional and avoid the illegal search.  Even though they might turn up relevant and admissible evidence.  Even though there is no punishment.

Lots of professionals I know avoid doing the most convenient thing to get what they need.  Lots.

Posted in Law, Ramblings
Tags: War on Drugs, War on Rationality