> Last week, the [state] agency sent a letter to the city notifying it that its five-member police department would be closed effective Sept. 18. Law enforcement duties will be transferred to the Henderson County Sheriff’s Office until a permanent solution is found.
> The agency said its investigation found the department failed to meet minimum standards and failed to provide sufficient evidence that it provided a "public benefit to the community." The department also failed to provide resources to its officers, including bulletproof vests and an evidence room.
The US has many thousands of little law enforcement jurisdictions like this. The argument for it is local control but in practice you too often get situations like this one. Poor quality, abuses, corruption, good-old-boys network, lack of accountability, frequent unnecessary use of force, etc. Large police organizations are certainly not w/o problems but at this point there are accountability mechanisms and modern standards.
The WaPo did an excellent article a few years ago looking at the fragmented LEO landscape
"Most police departments in America are small. That’s partly why changing policing is difficult, experts say"
Given the size of the US, and the variety of local populations, I argue that local enforcement is necessary. Adherence to larger enforcement standards is also necessary. I fear that larger, “cohesive” enforcement runs the risk of bringing more political laws and regulations from other jurisdictions. No one wants to be subjected to some remote jurisdiction’s idea of “lawfulness” especially when religious ideals get mixed in.
Well, how fine grained do we need to get? A police force with 5 officers is pretty fine. In this case law enforcement is being taken over by the county (of which there are 254 in Texas) so its still pretty local.
As always: it depends. There are many municipalities throughout the US that are content with (or can only afford) county-level enforcement. If their residents want something more localized, they need to do what it takes to create that.
In this case, what’s happened is fine. Leaving it up to local residents and their local government to form a new trustworthy enforcement agency is fine. Leaving it up to them to not do that is also fine.
Wouldn't you want more data to learn if its "fine" vs "not fine"? If you learned that small departments were significantly worse than larger ones on use of force, corruption, etc wouldn't that inform a decision?
There is a pattern where elective democracy does not work, or at least gets weird at small scales like this. Small pool to elect from, only need to win over a modest number of people, etc.
I agree with this. It may be reasonable for a town to have its own PD if they can afford it and choose to have one, but certain levels of training and evidence collection and ethical standards should be set at the state level or higher.
Why is it so ridiculous that the state can provide police where and when they're needed, and it's only when you have a sufficiently robust metropolitan area that can afford their own police force that you then have "local" cops?
Or are we all about locally-sourced, artisanal law enforcement now?
The Texas Commission on Law Enforcement investigated in response to a specific incident that got national news coverage. One has to wonder if there are other PDs that also are not providing public benefit but just didn't attract attention in this way.
> The department also failed to provide resources to its officers, including bulletproof vests and an evidence room.
Of course this will be used to bring back a PD with a bigger budget and more weapons. They may use some of the expanded funds to buy body cams but they won't work.
The town only has 860 residents. I don't know how they afforded 5 police officers are all, much less how they can afford top expand. I used to live in a county (not city!) of 15,000 people, and the whole county got by on just two sheriffs - calling for help from other nearby cities (in a different county) when there was a big event. Edit: now that I think of it, there was budget for 3 sheriffs - but they only rarely managed to have all 3 positions filled at the same time.
I don't live in Texas, but my experience in Iowa and MN is that cities need about 10,000 people before having a separate police department is worth the bother. At 500 they pay the sheriff a little extra to run extra patrols down the streets to "provide a presence", but it isn't full time (other than possibly an incentive to have a sheriff live in the city so his car was visible in his driveway when he was off-duty.
>I don't know how they afforded 5 police officers are all
Do they have a state or interstate highway running through? Predating on motorists and commerce that does not vote in their jurisdiction is a tried and true strategy for a "zero cost" police department.
Also the One Big Beautiful Bill BS funneled funding to local PDs that partner with ICE. Before that Operation Stonegarden was doing something similar supposedly only near borders but IDK if that's been broadening geographically. Texas also has a program (Lonestar) doing the same kind of thing.
In BC Canada, many, and possibly most cities use the national police force (RCMP) as their local police force. A city that contracts out with the RCMP gets a local RCMP detachment with local headquarters, etc.
Imagine, say, Framingham Massachusetts contracting the FBI for their local police services.
I imagine that could be a big problem if the national police force suddenly had a corruption problem: many cities would also suddenly have a police corruption problem. As far as I know, that's not currently the case, although somebody might correct me.
Some BC cities, like Vancouver and Surrey, have their own police forces (Surrey is actually in the middle of phasing out RCMP usage in favour of their own police force).
Probably works great if you have a small town that has the same cultural values without any force imported migrants that don't mesh with your town's values.
Some interesting context: the city of Camden, NJ had its (much larger) police department closed by the state in 2013. Its duties were handed over to the county police, the same as they're doing in the linked article.
The Camden County police successfully brought the crime rate way down. And in the summer of 2020, when riots rocked the US, the CCPD was held up as an example of good policing.
I shudder to think how much of this type malfeasance went unpunished. At least now with ubiquitous cell phones and social media, there's the chance it will catch the attention of a higher authority.
The situations aren't comparable. Oakland is a major city that is absolutely big enough to have its own police department. One of the biggest problems with it is that it is understaffed - it would be good for the city of Oakland to hire hundreds more officers. If the city was barred from running a police department and policing responsibilities were transferred to the county, that would itself be a huge political issue - it's already the case that the Oakland electorate is at odds with the electorate of Alameda county at large about crime and policing - and realistically the county sheriff would have to hire a huge number of the same people currently doing policing in Oakland.
LA Sheriffs have a history of corruption. They were hired private security by Hugh Hefner to limit and squash investigations. [0] The local police willfully turned a blind eye to drug trafficking, sexual assault, and violence at the Playboy Mansion.
The _Thing Blue Line_ greatest promoter was LA police Chief William H. Parker. [1] His blatant racism and abuse was reason for the Watts riots. [2] Any time I see the USA flag with the thing blue line all I can see is bigotry.
Major issue is the _Warrior_ mentality that is being taught. [3] "It is them versus us". Them being the community and Us are the police. It breeds discrimination and corruption. Police training should be focused on supporting the community; _We_.
It is easier to take down a small corrupt police force versus a large corrupt one. The District Attorneys have no issue protecting bad officers in large communities. [4] Best way to describe is a _fraternity_ that protects their own, even when they members are corrupt.
> Last week, the [state] agency sent a letter to the city notifying it that its five-member police department would be closed effective Sept. 18. Law enforcement duties will be transferred to the Henderson County Sheriff’s Office until a permanent solution is found.
> The agency said its investigation found the department failed to meet minimum standards and failed to provide sufficient evidence that it provided a "public benefit to the community." The department also failed to provide resources to its officers, including bulletproof vests and an evidence room.
The US has many thousands of little law enforcement jurisdictions like this. The argument for it is local control but in practice you too often get situations like this one. Poor quality, abuses, corruption, good-old-boys network, lack of accountability, frequent unnecessary use of force, etc. Large police organizations are certainly not w/o problems but at this point there are accountability mechanisms and modern standards.
The WaPo did an excellent article a few years ago looking at the fragmented LEO landscape
"Most police departments in America are small. That’s partly why changing policing is difficult, experts say"
https://archive.li/05zA7
Given the size of the US, and the variety of local populations, I argue that local enforcement is necessary. Adherence to larger enforcement standards is also necessary. I fear that larger, “cohesive” enforcement runs the risk of bringing more political laws and regulations from other jurisdictions. No one wants to be subjected to some remote jurisdiction’s idea of “lawfulness” especially when religious ideals get mixed in.
Well, how fine grained do we need to get? A police force with 5 officers is pretty fine. In this case law enforcement is being taken over by the county (of which there are 254 in Texas) so its still pretty local.
> Well, how fine grained do we need to get?
As always: it depends. There are many municipalities throughout the US that are content with (or can only afford) county-level enforcement. If their residents want something more localized, they need to do what it takes to create that.
In this case, what’s happened is fine. Leaving it up to local residents and their local government to form a new trustworthy enforcement agency is fine. Leaving it up to them to not do that is also fine.
Wouldn't you want more data to learn if its "fine" vs "not fine"? If you learned that small departments were significantly worse than larger ones on use of force, corruption, etc wouldn't that inform a decision?
> Wouldn't you want more data to learn if its "fine" vs "not fine"?
Sure. But I’d default to the locals’ preferences in the absence of it.
There is a pattern where elective democracy does not work, or at least gets weird at small scales like this. Small pool to elect from, only need to win over a modest number of people, etc.
You see it with home owners associations as well.
> the county (of which there are 254 in Texas)
Fun fact: Texas's counties range in population from ~5.1 million (Harris — Houston) to less than 500 (Loving, King, Kenedy [sic])
I agree with this. It may be reasonable for a town to have its own PD if they can afford it and choose to have one, but certain levels of training and evidence collection and ethical standards should be set at the state level or higher.
Why is it so ridiculous that the state can provide police where and when they're needed, and it's only when you have a sufficiently robust metropolitan area that can afford their own police force that you then have "local" cops?
Or are we all about locally-sourced, artisanal law enforcement now?
Who said it’s ridiculous? If that’s how you want your locality to obtain law enforcement, go for it.
Are you suggesting that your way is The Way everyone else should go? That is what I’m arguing against. Let locals decide.
The Texas Commission on Law Enforcement investigated in response to a specific incident that got national news coverage. One has to wonder if there are other PDs that also are not providing public benefit but just didn't attract attention in this way.
> The department also failed to provide resources to its officers, including bulletproof vests and an evidence room.
Of course this will be used to bring back a PD with a bigger budget and more weapons. They may use some of the expanded funds to buy body cams but they won't work.
The town only has 860 residents. I don't know how they afforded 5 police officers are all, much less how they can afford top expand. I used to live in a county (not city!) of 15,000 people, and the whole county got by on just two sheriffs - calling for help from other nearby cities (in a different county) when there was a big event. Edit: now that I think of it, there was budget for 3 sheriffs - but they only rarely managed to have all 3 positions filled at the same time.
I don't live in Texas, but my experience in Iowa and MN is that cities need about 10,000 people before having a separate police department is worth the bother. At 500 they pay the sheriff a little extra to run extra patrols down the streets to "provide a presence", but it isn't full time (other than possibly an incentive to have a sheriff live in the city so his car was visible in his driveway when he was off-duty.
>I don't know how they afforded 5 police officers are all
Do they have a state or interstate highway running through? Predating on motorists and commerce that does not vote in their jurisdiction is a tried and true strategy for a "zero cost" police department.
Also the One Big Beautiful Bill BS funneled funding to local PDs that partner with ICE. Before that Operation Stonegarden was doing something similar supposedly only near borders but IDK if that's been broadening geographically. Texas also has a program (Lonestar) doing the same kind of thing.
I wish I knew what the report said exactly…. what did they do? Nothing?
>The mayor said he invites anyone with knowledge of water systems to get in touch with the city to help.
This seems like a bad way to fix things….
In BC Canada, many, and possibly most cities use the national police force (RCMP) as their local police force. A city that contracts out with the RCMP gets a local RCMP detachment with local headquarters, etc.
Imagine, say, Framingham Massachusetts contracting the FBI for their local police services.
I imagine that could be a big problem if the national police force suddenly had a corruption problem: many cities would also suddenly have a police corruption problem. As far as I know, that's not currently the case, although somebody might correct me.
Some BC cities, like Vancouver and Surrey, have their own police forces (Surrey is actually in the middle of phasing out RCMP usage in favour of their own police force).
It’s common in the US for small cities without a police force to be covered by county officers.
Probably works great if you have a small town that has the same cultural values without any force imported migrants that don't mesh with your town's values.
Some interesting context: the city of Camden, NJ had its (much larger) police department closed by the state in 2013. Its duties were handed over to the county police, the same as they're doing in the linked article.
The Camden County police successfully brought the crime rate way down. And in the summer of 2020, when riots rocked the US, the CCPD was held up as an example of good policing.
[0]: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/new-jersey-city-disband...
(EDIT: corrected name of city)
It's the city of Camden that had its police department closed, not Newark.
Oh, sorry! Yes, I meant Camden.
I shudder to think how much of this type malfeasance went unpunished. At least now with ubiquitous cell phones and social media, there's the chance it will catch the attention of a higher authority.
I'm guessing Oakland PD is sitting up a little straighter today.
The situations aren't comparable. Oakland is a major city that is absolutely big enough to have its own police department. One of the biggest problems with it is that it is understaffed - it would be good for the city of Oakland to hire hundreds more officers. If the city was barred from running a police department and policing responsibilities were transferred to the county, that would itself be a huge political issue - it's already the case that the Oakland electorate is at odds with the electorate of Alameda county at large about crime and policing - and realistically the county sheriff would have to hire a huge number of the same people currently doing policing in Oakland.
I applied the article's premise, irrespective of the excuses proffered: "failing to provide a public benefit"
Can’t read without subscribing.
https://archive.li/tMVUw
I cannot get into the archive either, a better link:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/sep/15/trinidad-tex...
Seems like the most blatant corruption turns up in small towns.
LA Sheriffs have a history of corruption. They were hired private security by Hugh Hefner to limit and squash investigations. [0] The local police willfully turned a blind eye to drug trafficking, sexual assault, and violence at the Playboy Mansion.
The _Thing Blue Line_ greatest promoter was LA police Chief William H. Parker. [1] His blatant racism and abuse was reason for the Watts riots. [2] Any time I see the USA flag with the thing blue line all I can see is bigotry.
Major issue is the _Warrior_ mentality that is being taught. [3] "It is them versus us". Them being the community and Us are the police. It breeds discrimination and corruption. Police training should be focused on supporting the community; _We_.
It is easier to take down a small corrupt police force versus a large corrupt one. The District Attorneys have no issue protecting bad officers in large communities. [4] Best way to describe is a _fraternity_ that protects their own, even when they members are corrupt.
[0] https://www.themoviedb.org/tv/155892-secrets-of-playboy
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thin_blue_line
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_riots
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrior_policing
[4] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2026/08/01/los-an...
Less legitimate activity to obfuscate it amongst.
You can't launder an entire cartel's worth of money through a sandwich shop.
Plenty of cities have absolutely off the rails individual precincts or specialty tax forces.
There's a reasonable argument to be made that many police departments fall into this category.