[slipperlobster]

We have a bunch of off-duty police here in the southeast US that do traffic control for churches, HOAs, etc. Not the same as security, I guess, but tangentially related.

I always wonder how this is legally allowed. The idea of using taxpayer vehicles, training, equipment, etc. to control traffic while also leveraging the power of the badge to hold authority seems legally questionable, but IANAL.

[rjmunro]

In the UK, I believe that if you organise a large event that needs police coverage, you pay the Police force to provide on-duty officers. This seems a lot less open to corruption because it would be based on a standard price list that was public, and the officers received the same as they would doing any other duties.

I know that's how it worked at some events my Dad organised in the 90s. I can't find anything about this on any Police force website, so it might be that it doesn't work like that any more.

[Ichthypresbyter]

There was a discussion about this on another HN thread today. [0]

As you've said, the contact is with the police force not with the individual officers, who get paid the same as they would for any other duties.

There was a whole court case [1] about when the police could charge for this sort of coverage, which codified the current arrangement that, at football matches, they can charge for the officers in the stadium but not for the ones outside it.

In the UK, while police are allowed to have outside jobs, any outside employment must be approved by the force, and as a matter of policy security work is banned. Similarly, security guards aren't allowed [2] to be special constables (people who work as part-time unpaid police officers).

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37912396 [1] https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/115.html [2] https://www.met.police.uk/car/careers/met/police-volunteer-r...

[slipperlobster]

Oh, hey, I'm not saying off-duty police officers can't do side gigs. I'm more questioning them using publicly funded resources and authority to do so.

Anyone can try to direct traffic, but cops are paid to do it because they get the car and flashing lights (and I assume the ability to ticket/arrest violations) while still collecting side money.

It'd sort of be like me using my company's laptop/servers for side work, I guess.

e: some random source I found -- of course the answer to the question is avoided, other than "it's for the officer's safety" https://www.al.com/on-the-road/2009/12/post_17.html

[mensetmanusman]

You would have to prove that trained non-off-duty citizens were prevented from supporting, otherwise you would implement a policy where you shrink the number of people that can take said position and that increases cost for tax payers.

[1-more]

For a lot of the above-board police charges in the US the prices have gone up a lot. Anecdotally, I remember this thread where cycling race organizers talk about how the biggest cost for road races is always police. That's to be expected, but a lot of them mention that those costs have gone up a lot recently

https://www.reddit.com/r/Velo/comments/us0ciu/cost_to_put_on...

[slipperlobster]

That's wild. Personally, I see that (cyclists hiring police officers for route clearing) as a _valid_ implementation of this. Churches/neighborhoods hiring off-duty police officers daily just ease congestion? Seems like a stretch to use publicly funded resources, to me.

[1-more]

Yeah when you need to effect road closures for sure you're costing the municipality something and should have to pay something for that. The congestion easing on otherwise-normally-functioning roads certainly feels shady.

[tomschlick]

Those are likely reserve officers. Reserve officers are generally part time and are used for additional manpower for events or recurring security so that normal patrol officers aren't short staffed.

Generally the private entity pays the city, which then pays the cop. In many states private entities can't stop/redirect the flow of traffic legally so they hire off duty cops to do so.

[slipperlobster]

That's my point - seems like private police with both public authority and resources. These officers are directly benefiting churches, private neighborhoods, etc. by providing public services benefitting private institutions.

Seems sketchy to me.

[tomschlick]

There is another way to look at it...

It's advantageous for police to be present at large gatherings, from a traffic control point of view it prevents accidents with other members of the public that would cost the municipality even more money to respond to.

Also from a security standpoint as people physically fighting or potentially someone looking to do harm with a weapon would both reflect badly on the community and their events, and also require even more of a response.

So if the event organizer is paying for that security from off duty / reserve officers, the community is getting that extra protection essentially for free, whereas they would have had to pay other officers likely for overtime if it wasn't paid for by the event.

[rc_mob]

my 1000 house HOA pays county police over 100k a year to have an officer park his car in the area for half of every week

[slipperlobster]

Our 2,000 home HOA luckily is large enough that city police just park in our parking lots by design - no fees required! grimace

[naijaboiler]

Haveyou tries being black. You may be able to get half the entire force parked there for free