Responding to one of the most bizarre police scandals in years, radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh said during his Feb. 13 broadcast: "I know it's a dirty job, somebody's gotta do it, can you imagine the waiting list?"

The Spotsylvania County Sheriff's Office in Virginia has been scrutinized recently due to an unusual measure in its law enforcement tactics: Sheriff Howard D. Smith has brought national attention to Spotsylvania for allowing his detectives to participate in sexual acts during sting operations aimed at catching hidden brothels.

According to Mr. Smith, the tactic is a necessary component for Virginia law enforcement officials due to the evidentiary requirements of state law. Calling the brothel workers "masseuses," Mr. Smith claimed that it is nearly impossible to get a verbal incrimination on the part of the suspected prostitute, thus necessitating the physical contact. The program is comprised of single officers and has been used by the Sheriff's Office in the past.

Along with Mr. Smith, the county's chief prosecutor, William F. Neely, compared the tactic to a similar one used by narcotics officers in undercover operations. Written into the Virginia statutes regarding drug possession is an exemption clause for officers who possess illegal substances in the performance of their duties. The rationale for the participation in the sexual acts is thus an extension of the investigative technique employed by the narcotics officials, even though there is not a similar statutory exemption for vice officers in this situation.

The logical unsoundness of the practice is what ultimately leads to the real reason why this technique cannot be practiced by active law enforcement officers. To be sure, much of the controversy surrounding this event has to do with the lascivious nature of the investigative measures being employed. The sexual deeds of public figures in the press tend to capture the attention of the public in a way that many issues fail to do so. There is an important issue that must be applied uniformly to law enforcement practices in order to ensure the just application of the law.

To refer back to the exemption clause for possession of illicit substances, the state of Virginia found that it was necessary to allow officers to break one crime in order to incriminate those involved in more serious misdeeds involving drugs. The law differentiates between the possession of an illicit substance and its use or sale.

Implied in this logic is the idea that the use of a drug is the more egregious crime than its mere possession and that the state's interest lies with the prevention of its use. Thus, as a practical necessity to prevent the use or sale of narcotics, the state also found it prudent to outlaw possession of the substance as well.

This is where the logical fallacy of Messrs. Smith and Neely becomes apparent. Unlike possession, whose illegality serves as a means to prevent the targeted action associated with narcotics, prostitution is the targeted interest of the state. Prostitution does not possess the same associated behaviors of drug use that can be proscribed by the state. As a result, to compare the targeted action of prostitution enforcement to an associated action of drug enforcement is inappropriate. The true analogy that can be made in this situation would be to compare participation in the targeted state interests. Thus, the involvement of the officers in accepting sexual favors in order to crack down on prostitution is tantamount to narcotics officers indulging in drug use in order to achieve a similar end against their targeted behavior.

The hyperbolic sentiment that arises from this situation is that it is necessary for law enforcement officers to break the law in order to uphold it, which as a paradox is logically unsound.

The role of an officer is one who strives to uphold the law and, as such, is subject to a higher standard of behavior. People tolerate allowing officers to possess illicit substances because possession is not a crime per se, but becomes so as a result of the interest of the state to prevent drug use. Prostitution, however, is a crime in and of itself, and to allow officers to ignore this creates a moral conflict.

The standard that must be applied uniformly, and one that is predominantly applied, is that except in specific cases where an exemption is a necessary practical concern, law enforcement officers must be held to the same set of standards as the citizens they swear to protect and serve. This is a principle that can be achieved and one that will result in a happy ending for everyone.

Mike Skelly ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in finance and political science.