A police constable in Osaka was found to have been engaging in a pattern of illicit activities, including the receipt of complimentary meals and sexual services in exchange for providing tip-offs on police investigations into sex industry and the subsequent leniency shown to the proprietors of these establishments. Due to the nature of the police organization, the appellant was affiliated with the Criminal Prevention Division, which lacked the legal authority to regulate sex industry. Taishinin disregarded the appellants’ character evidence and his assertion of frank companionship. The legislation in question did not delineate a distinction between permissible and impermissible police power through the use of exegetical analysis of legislative text. Rather, it unambiguously stipulated that police officers possess de facto general authority for duties that were not explicitly enumerated by law. The organizational structure of the police station was divided into different divisions for the purpose of facilitating the efficient execution of police duties. A thorough examination of the duties of the prewar Japanese police reveals that many of these duties, which permeated the daily lives of the Japanese, were not formally authorized by law. Rather, these duties were based on community policing.