> 1) It's unconstitutional, as a violation of due process, to suspend officers without pay, before they have been adjudicated as having done something wrong. N

> 1) It's unconstitutional, as a violation of due process, to suspend officers without pay, before they have been adjudicated as having done something wrong. Nope, not unconstitutional, not even close. The constitution has literally nothing to say about suspending someone's ability to work due to arrests and legal proceedings, because it's not a set of guidelines for prosecution, it's a foundation for lawmakers and the judicial system by which to form and judge laws and crimes. > 2) It's probably unconstitutional to impose forfeiture of vested interests as punishment for a crime. Assets are frozen during criminal proceedings all the time. Ironically, especially for drug-related prosecutions (big ones, albeit, and for good reason). > 4) Removing legal protections for police sounds lovely when you only consider situations like this one, but you forget that for every one instance of something like this, there are dozens of instances of actual bad guys filing meritless lawsuits. TOTALLY. Luckily, we have the magical judicial system, which is built to handle cases, you know, individual instances where the law is either broken or does not provide enough clarity, and thus, case trial can help to narrow the meaning of laws. They can also award compensatory and punitive damages, which seem more than justified in this particular instance.