trustme.bro/r/…
✓ checked
trust me, bro:
here is the receipt.
the claim
People with a high IQ are barred from becoming police officers in New London
the verdict
SUPPORTED
the evidence backs this
refutedsupported
the weight of evidence
1 source for · 0 against

A peer-reviewed legal and police studies article reports that in the case of Jordan v. The City of New London, a police applicant was denied employment because his score on the cognitive ability test was considered too high.

Evidence for · 1
2003 · cited by 1
In the recent case of Jordan v. The City of New London a police applicant was denied employment because he scored too well on the cognitive ability portion of his written application test. The importance of the case stems from its potential impact on three areas. First, in a time of shrinking applications to police forces, legal decisions related to the selection process would appear significant. Second, the rejection of an applicant by a police department because he was thought too intelligent appears to create or reinforce negative stereotypes of police in the USA. Third, the case involves employment law, an area that has proven fertile ground for suits against the police. The article explores the case in detail as well as reporting the results of a survey of police mid‐level managers concerning the impact of intelligence on various police administrative concerns.
See more details
The analysis

rails:sufficiency:supported:single_source:for=1+0p:against=0+0p | v55:sufficiency

Everything we examined (1)
This check searched the claim as stated. It did not run a separate search for evidence against it.
  1. <i>Jordan</i> v. <i>The City of New London</i>, police hiring and IQ: “When all the answers they don’t amount to much”peer-reviewedno side taken
The paper trail · every fact has a biography
first checked04 Aug 2026
judged → INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE · 004 Aug 2026
This receipt carries no identity, shared or not. Sharing publishes your connection to it, not your data.
Check your own claim
Challenge the receipt
trust me, bro: win the argument, pass the class, survive peer review.
This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work · Dispute this receipt