Minnesota town plans to replace its Sheriff's Office patrol with private security guards to save $8,694 a month

**Jenna** · 11-03-11, 09:27 AM

The Foley City Council voted in October to hire a private security company to patrol its streets. The city has had a contract with the Benton County Sheriff’s Office for the service since 2003 but decided to end it to save money.

The company is willing to provide 24-hour patrol services for $16,000 a month. This year, Foley paid Benton County $24,694 a month for deputies to provide coverage for 17.1 hours a day.

In the letter, Swanson says that she is not aware of any Minnesota city that uses a private security company.

But she said a borough of Sussex, N.J., abolished its police department in 1993 and hired a private security company. The borough is about the same size as Foley, she said.

She said the decision was reversed after a series of mishaps.

In the letter, Swanson warns that the city is opening itself up to “financial exposure” by having a private security company operate instead of a police department. She cited the potential for lawsuits for false imprisonment as one example.

There’s also the issue of whether self-incriminating statements or evidence taken from a suspect by a security officer could be used in court, she said.

More here: Foley, Benton sheriff, Attorney General to talk police issues | St. Cloud TIMES | sctimes.com

**Jks9199** · 11-03-11, 09:59 AM

There are some provisions of Virginia code that might, at least in theory, allow for a community to do something like this, then have them appointed as special conservators or officers. They'd need a full academy though...

In fact, as I think about it, I know there's at least one private police force. It's a bit south of me, at a very pricey community. I forget the name, something with an A I think...

EDIT: Figured it out. Aquia Harbour Police Department. And of course there are railroad police and other special conservators...

**Jenna** · 11-05-11, 09:28 PM

Robots would be even cheaper.

**Broke Hoss** · 11-05-11, 11:52 PM

Wow, I foresee a lot of headaches should they go that route. Are these guys going to be tasked with enforcing criminal/traffic laws? I don't see that working at all. I know, here, most laws governing Obstructing Governmental Operations (Chapt 38 TPC) refer to Peace Officers not Pvt Security Guards. I think it's just a bucket of worms.

**jmur5074** · 11-06-11, 01:23 AM

This is beyond a horrible idea.

They won't have the ability to enforce any traffic or criminal laws. The only arrest "powers" they'll have will be citizen's arrest, which as far as I can recall without looking it up, only include felonies committed in their presence.

They also won't have any state L.E. deadly force or use of force laws backing them up.

**pc830cop** · 11-06-11, 12:53 PM

Woohoo! Let's all meet in the city and drag race or drift (which ever your preference) through the city.

**Ducky** · 11-13-11, 01:27 PM

Speaking as a security guard, this idea sucks balls.

**213th** · 11-13-11, 05:27 PM

I do not forsee a good end to this

**Captain America** · 11-13-11, 05:29 PM

You get what you pay for.

**pgg** · 11-13-11, 07:21 PM

Several years ago a bay area city laid off all of cops and told the downtown businesses they would no longer be able to respond to most calls including thefts, burglaries, loitering, etc. This also included getting no patrols. They were told that if something did occur do just make an online documentation report. The downtown businesses formed an assoctiation and hired a security company to patrol their businesses for them. It was the only protection and response they ever got.