It was an honor to testify, and I very much appreciated the thoughtful questions.

judiciary.house.gov/committee-ac...

Thank you, Lucy! It was so awesome but I think I may be retiring from 100-milers.

Chap. 4 argues that the public cannot reasonably trust that rights will be honestly respected if the state’s pursuit of security is opaque. But it is implausible to think the state can provide security without opacity. Through cases studies, a pragmatic compromise is proposed.

Chap. 3 draws on case studies—from terrorism to perjury—to explore when bad faith and fraud are justified in policing. The case studies show the need for a revisionary theory given the police’s vast use of dishonest, deceptive, and fraudulent tactics in non-emergency situations.

The Interlude explores methodologies for moving from theoretical to practical concerns, proposing a framework for assessing the justification of the police’s deviation from rule of law principles to engage in deception, dishonesty, and bad faith that are on par with fraud.

Chapter 2 draws on the norms of contract law—including good faith, honesty, and transparency—to illustrate how policing reaches beyond the value of security. People entrust certain tasks (policing) to agents of the state, which is connected to a right to be secured in good faith.

Chapter 1 explores the universal role that force and fraud play in unjustified acts, raising questions about the justification of a police institution enmeshed in deception and dishonesty. It should give us pause when the police depart from universalistic norms against fraud.