The oath of office of the police officer is somewhat similar to the oath of office of an attorney. You can compare for yourself:
From the Maryland Constitution:
Every person elected, or appointed, to any office of profit or trust, under this
Constitution, or under the Laws, made pursuant thereto, shall, before he enters
upon the duties of such office, take and subscribe the following oath, or affirmation:
I, ..........., do swear, (or affirm, as the case may be,) that I will support the
Constitution of the United States; and that I will be faithful and bear true
allegiance to the State of Maryland, and support the Constitution and Laws thereof;
and that I will, to the best of my skill and judgment, diligently and faithfully,
without partiality or prejudice, execute the office of .............., according to the
Constitution and Laws of this State, (and, if a Governor, Senator, Member of the
House of Delegates, or Judge,) that I will not directly or indirectly, receive the
profits or any part of the profits of any other office during the term of my acting as
.................. (1977, ch. 681, ratified Nov. 7, 1978.)
I believe that this is the oath that a police officer takes. They are appointed to an office of trust. In my opinion if the police officer take such an oath he or she should at least be somewhat familiar with the Constitution of the United States as well as the Constitution of the state of Maryland.
This observation is relevant because sometimes during trial a question is asked of an officer if he or she is familiar with something as general as the fourth amendment. This will often draw an objection from the prosecution where they claim that the officer is not a lawyer and has no reason to know the laws. I think a proper response is that the officer took a solemn oath to support the Constitution of the United States as well as the Constitution of Maryland. How can the officer support these constitutions if he has no idea of their content? I think it's a fair argument.