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 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.
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.
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.
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?
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...
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.
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.
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 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 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.
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.
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.
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's a reasonable argument to be made that many police departments fall into this category.
Seems like the most blatant corruption turns up in small towns.
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.
I'm guessing Oakland PD is sitting up a little straighter today.