I'd remove that exemption in this case. I want an officer that uses excessive force to be at risk of losing his house, his car, and all of his assets right down

I'd remove that exemption in this case. I want an officer that uses excessive force to be at risk of losing his house, his car, and all of his assets right down to his underwear. And I want him to be aware of this, because I want that knowledge to influence his decision to use that force in the first place. I want him to know that he's literally laying everything on the line. (Again, if he doesn't like this, he's free to resign.) I want that officer to consider if, instead of using all his shiny military toys in a flashy no-knock raid, perhaps some old-fashioned police work might work better. Instead of storming the place in search of the suspect, how about just staking it out and waiting until the guy goes out for beer? Instead of charging in with M-16s blazing because the guy might flush drugs down the toilet, how about intercepting the sewer lines from the house and watching in case drugs get flushed out? But those just require patience and legwork, and you don't get to be all gung-ho with your fancy SWAT gear and your armored vehicles and all that.