On the Free Keene forum a discussion/debate has sparked into existence regarding the topic of whether or not the police are blindly robotic in their enforcement of the law. My position on this important question is that the police have no choice but to be blindly robotic and accordingly will enforce any law that they’re directed to. If a police officer wants to keep their job, they have no choice.
Let me articulate my argument as to why they are forced to be blindly robotic… why it is a terrible thing… and why society would be better of if this was not the case.
In the State of New Hampshire just about all people who have the “authority” to arrest someone (initiate force) answer to an organization called Police Standards and Training. PSTC (for short) has the authority to determine what the appropriate training of new police officers will be, as well as revoke or suspend a certification of an individual law enforcement officer for a violation of its rules.
In order to be appointed (and remain appointed) as a police officer in New Hampshire one must comply with the rules set forth by PSTC. This diktat (as it pertains to police officers of towns) can be found in this law. The law reads:
Any permanent constable or police officer who is either elected under the provisions of RSA 41:47 or appointed for full-time duty under the provisions of RSA 105:1, and who is in compliance with the requirements of RSA 188-F:27, shall continue to hold such office during good behavior, unless sooner removed for cause by the selectmen, after notice and hearing, or unless the town has rescinded its action as provided in RSA 41:47. Any such elected permanent constable or police officer shall be deemed to be a permanent policeman, and entitled to benefits under the provisions of RSA 103 if otherwise qualified.
“(W)ho is in compliance with the requirements of (PSTC).”
So, as a matter of law, in order for one to become or remain a police officer… they must be in compliance with the rules of PSTC.
One of the rules that PSTC imposes on a governmental unit that wishes to employ a new law enforcement officer is that they conduct a background investigation. The background investigation requires the following:
Pol 301.05 Background Investigation. The following shall apply to the background investigation required on the applicant by the agency:
(g) The hiring authority shall evaluate the results of its background investigation and the agency shall not appoint or invest with authority an applicant who:
(16) Whose general character and reputation in the community are such that a reasonable person would doubt that the applicant would conduct him/herself with honesty and integrity and uphold the rule of law.
In order to even become a police officer you need to be someone who will “uphold the rule of law.” Not “uphold moral laws” or “uphold laws that address real crimes.”
Correct me if I’m wrong… but if this rule were in place during the 1960’s and a person who told everyone they would never enforce Jim Crow laws applied to be a law enforcement officer, they legally could never become one. Why? They don’t believe in blindly upholding the “rule of law.” You know, words on paper that did the following:
– Made slavery possible,
– Implemented the mass murder of Jews in Germany; and
– Presently causes people to be put in cages like animals for possessing plants.
So… if you want to BECOME a police officer, you must be someone who believes in the “rule of law.” If you believe in the “rule of law” you support doing precisely what it is that the legislature says you should… until the courts say otherwise. This blind belief and support of the “rule of law” could cause you to hurt a great many people… but that’s okay, right? It’s the law.
There are very few people who have state “authority” to arrest without answering to these rules. The two reasons for this exemption are either constitutional or specific statutory exemption. For the hell of it, I’ll list three examples:
1. The “High Sheriff” elected to one of New Hampshire’s ten counties.
Becoming a sheriff in New Hampshire is a constitutional right (specifically Part I, Article 71)… which makes it beyond the reach of a legislature-created regulatory body.
2. The Commissioner of Agriculture Markets, and Food.
The Commissioner of Agriculture, Markets, and Food and his “inspectors” have police authority pursuant to this law. This law requires that the “inspectors” meet the requirements of PSTC… oddly, it nowhere mentions that the actual Commissioner him/herself must comply.
3. The mayor of a city.
This law from 1855 gives the mayor of a city the power of a sheriff (ie: arrest) without any statutory requirement that the mayor comply with PSTC’s rules. This law is also the closest law found in the New Hampshire Revised Statues that has to do with “peace officers.” Note the extent of the mayor’s enforcement authority. This law is how all “peace officer” laws should read.
-/-
My conclusion: Unless you are someone who believes in the blind, robotic, unquestioning “rule of law,” you cannot even become a police officer. Your own moral judgment is not allowed. You must substitute your own judgment for that of the majority.
Blind belief in the “rule of law” is responsible for countless cases of mistreatment of people throughout history. Blind belief in the “rule of law” is responsible for countless cases of mistreatment of people today.
