Sexual Conduct with Prostitute Legal for Cop if He Arrests Her

When a police officer reported that a fellow member of the force had used a prostitute, the bosses found an excuse to fire him.

Vice Squad

I have argued that no cop has a right to a job at taxpayer expense. Some might think that I am contradicting myself when I state that, if this report is at all accurate, Sergeant Don Paul Bales should be given his job back at the Fort Smith, Arkansas, Police Department. But I am not arguing that he should get his job back simply because the people firing him didn’t follow some kind of due process. I’m arguing that he should get a better job back—perhaps police chief—and everyone who had anything to do with firing him should be fired and charges considered against them for a criminal conspiracy. I’m arguing this should be done in order to rescue the law-abiding people of Fort Smith from people who have no business being in charge of any part of law enforcement.

What did Bales do?

Bales found out that a fellow officer engaged in sexual conduct with a prostitute before arresting her for having sex with him.

Let me skip the noise generated to provide excuses to fire Bales and go straight to the punch line:

The lawsuit states the police chief later concluded the officer did not violate that rule because he was engaging in sexual conduct only to obtain evidence as part of an arrest.

You can see the aptly named Sergeant Daniel Grubbs assure the media (with no pushback whatsoever) that such sexual activity is “lawful.”

So, when you teach your children to respect the police, do you really want to be holding up to them men who get naked with prostitutes and let them perform sex acts on them? Is that who we praise as “our heroes in uniform”?

The Fort Smith Police Department expects their residents to support them even as they all approve such conduct.

And then, just to add another layer of corruption in the mix, we get this:

The lawsuit states the police chief and the city Civil Service Commission believe the probable cause affidavit should have remained confidential. They believe the disclosure of the police tactics used by the undercover officer could put other prostitution investigations in jeopardy, since criminals may not know a police officer can legally disrobe during an undercover prostitution arrest, according to the lawsuit.

Well, too bad! Law is a matter of public record. Secret laws are an insane contradiction of the most basic principles of Republican government. Just because you want to make your job easier doesn’t mean you can make the law “confidential.”

While the guy getting naked with and, uh, serviced by the prostitute did nothing wrong, the Department found an excuse to claim the whistleblower violated “procedure.” The crux of the matter seems to be that Bales tried to cover himself against Department betrayal (an accurate guess about what would happen, we now see) by giving material to his lawyer. He allegedly lied about what he told his lawyer.

But attorney-client-privilege is supposed to be sacrosanct. They had no right to ask him what information he gave to his lawyer.

This whole situation stinks.

What kind of people are we recruiting and giving authority over us?