(Disclaimer: I am nowhere near Law Enforcement, and I am a strong believer that LE does not get any special privileges such as qualified immunity as a shield fo

(Disclaimer: I am nowhere near Law Enforcement, and I am a strong believer that LE does not get any special privileges such as qualified immunity as a shield for abuses) It seems like there is some damned convenient setup there. -- A separate notice that provided guidelines to commanding officers said that while private conversations normally would not be "used to initiate a personnel complaint investigation or used against an employee in the adjudication of a personnel complaint," there was a caveat: "unless there is evidence of criminal or egregious misconduct." The board that heard the officers' case "determined the DICVS recording could be used as evidence in the disciplinary proceeding because the misconduct captured 'would certainly be classified as egregious,'" ---- So, there is evidence which is not supposed to be used, unless it is used to prove "egregious" level misconduct, but the level of misconduct is detected/documented by the evidence which isn't supposed to be used? So, a post-fact justification? Uh huh. (Updated to fix formatting)