The normal explanation is plenty, unless you’ve never met, read about, or heard anyone talk about, law enforcement officers (who are human beings - for better and for worse).
Those that fail to meet standards should be fired to spare the taxpayers from the lawsuits coming from AI-assisted complainants.
It’s also too much for Flock’s YC-funded technology to implement a field filter that rejects “LMAO” as a valid request.
At the very least, your local staff’s nationwide stalking credentials being harvested by phishing and abused by others should carry criminal negligence penalties. Governments should pass that liability onto this YC-funded startup company.
Reasonable people would expect what you expect. We are not reasonable people.
There is one (1) case in the literature, back in the early 2000s, where a department rejected a candidate as overqualified based on a cognitive assessment; the rejected applicant took that department to court and lost.
That's it; that's all the evidence.
Against that: most police departments around the country administer written tests with general cognitive components for which there is a floor score and no ceiling (the POST, the NTN, &c). And virtually no departments --- none I'm aware of --- administer IQ tests.
From all this, we've now got "a federally protected right"?
Feel free to consult an attorney.
Edit: I thought the case went further up - but, “persuasive precedent” for other jurisdictions now exists all the same.
Edit2: since I’m seeing the username of someone with a decent clue,
> and no ceiling
was there one on paper for the hiring standards of the dept in the case in question?
Does that matter?, if there’s no legal issue with using it as a disqualifying factor? - for any candidate - whether or not they even score well?
It's an Internet urban myth. I'm just stepping in to call it out as such.