I think one of the main differences between the police and the military is that the military is a much larger organization and as such makes it harder to have such corruption flourish as it would/does in smaller organizations such as all the individual police units. I know there was a video that went viral not to long ago where one LEO pulled over a LEO from another unit (like sheriff pulling over city, but I don't remember the exact relationship) for excessive speeding. The pulled over cop pretty much brushed off the one who pulled him over. In the military, the one making the pull over would have a much easier time in making the pulled over one comply or at least they would have been assured of them getting in trouble in the military, especially if they were are the same branch. I'm not claiming that corruption in the military does not exist, but it doesn't seem to be as invasive in the larger organization as it is in the smaller ones of the LEO organizations.
While I am not fully against this, there needs to be a lot of restrictions on this. First and foremost needs to be no seizure unless there is a conviction and no holding for evidence unless there is a charge.Suspicion should never be sufficient.
With this, there still needs to be accountability. For example an officer serving an eviction notice and getting the wrong address. While there is no real malice there, at the very least any damage done needs to be compensated for by the organization and maybe even mandatory retraining for the officer. Same for all officers who serve arrest warrants (especially the no knock kind) and break into the wrong home to serve it. The people are victims and there needs to be consequences to ensure due diligence. A mistake in which house a written location is, is nowhere near the same as a misunderstanding as to what the law says.
It's not hard to prove what they should have known. All police swear an oath to defend the constitutional rights of the people they serve. They, therefore, SHOULD know what rights the people have, and they SHOULD know not to violate those rights. A cop can credibly claim ignorance ONCE, when they commit a given violation. After that, they SHOULD know better. If they do it again, then they either are intentionally violating their oath, OR they are too stupid to learn from their mistakes. In either case, they can not be trusted with police power.
Well, what happens to the single ethical cop in the corrupt department? He cannot remain ethical while turning a blind eye to the corruption all around him in his department. Whether he is ultimately forced out, or he becomes corrupt himself, the argument in the OP becomes true. There can be no good cops where bad cops are allowed to exist.
