Germany has several child protection laws with exceptions like this. For instance, while it is illegal for everyone else authorities are allowed to generate and distribute computer-generated child pornography and may even possess, publish and distribute guides to real-life CSAM
That exception is just wrong. It defeats the purpose of protecting children’s privacy.
Critically analyzing these actions in terms of their stated goals makes it clear that Punishing Deviants is in fact the overriding goal to which all others take a back seat.
The thought process then for allowing these exceptions is something like “We are law enforcement and so we are not deviants, ergo, we should not be subject to laws written to punish deviants ”.
It’s a bias they have. Makes sense when they say cops have IQs below 110.
You do realize the average IQ is 100?
Yes, but they don’t hire above that range I cited. I read that somewhere. Here is an example: Court OKs Barring High IQs for Cops - ABC News
“New London had ‘shown a rational basis for the policy.’”
Provides zero elaboration
I am familiar with this idea. The prevailing attitude is that very smart individuals will not do well with the lack of stimulation of a regular patrol officer’s beat. Which is fine, until you promote them to detective. Then they are bloody useless. They are still “above average.” Of course, anyone with an IQ of 120 or more will run rings around them.