• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

US Army using Civillian Police on base?

The_Falcon

Army.ca Veteran
Inactive
Reaction score
1
Points
410
I found this during a late night of random web surfing http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/r190_56.pdf and I thought it was kind of odd.  Is the US Army so short on manpower that they are starting to hire civillians in place of MPs?  Any thoughts/comments (has this started, how is it working so far, are there benefits/drawbacks) from US soldier would be appreciated.

edit to fix link
 
Hmmm, link doesn't appear to be working.

At any rate I remember hearing something about the MP's in Canada trying out the same thing but I don't know all of the details (or if is true). From what I heard the RCMP started to police a base but it didn't last long as the Mounties were not informing the military COC of offences committed by subordinates.

Like I said I don't know if this was fact or rumor… I also heard the sky is blue.
 
The U.S. Army has used civilian security guards, stateside, for ammo dumps, supply depots etc., since the 70's. This policy was adopted after the Viet Nam war to free up troops for training and as a morale booster. I know as someone who walked his fair share of guard posts around an ammo dump that it was seen by most troops, rightly or wrongly, as a make work exercise. I'm not familiar with the use of civilian police on military bases. They would have to be some type of federal police force as opposed to state or county police to have jurisdiction.
 
The last US Base I was on in Feb had armed civilian pers at the entry/exit points and there was a civilian police station on base.  It appeard to me that they were the ones patrolling the base as I didn't see a single MP the entire week. Only the civ police cars.
 
Most of the Army posts, at least, have civilian officers on the gates. It's been a trend that's been gathering steam over the past several years.
 
Outside my lane here - how many bases / armouries have Commissionnaires at the front gate, vice MPs?
 
It was stated during a briefing at a conference that I attended in Arkansas a few years ago that MPs and Int were two of the trades in greatest demand for Iraq. I'd guess that this is a temporary (but open-ended) fix for a huge manpower burden.
 
tank recce said:
Outside my lane here - how many bases / armouries have Commissionnaires at the front gate, vice MPs?

A few, however there are still MPs on base, not civies.  Reading that progam outline, and from Harris' observation, it appears that the USA is supplementing/replacing MPs with internal civillian police.
 
Hatchet Man said:
I found this during a late night of random web surfing http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/r190_56.pdf and I thought it was kind of odd.  Is the US Army so short on manpower that they are starting to hire civillians in place of MPs?  Any thoughts/comments (has this started, how is it working so far, are there benefits/drawbacks) from US soldier would be appreciated.

edit to fix link

i've never ever seen such a thing.

r
 
I was just at Fort Lewis last week and the gates were manned by civilians, but Army MPs were on road patrol.
 
Isnt that because of the lack of personnel, too many of the MPs currently working overseas?  Or rather they worked out how to replace the MPs with civies so they could send more MPs overseas?
 
Some articles:
A Matter of Communication, Jurisdiction
By Linda D. Kozaryn
American Forces Press Service
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=45520

this is from a report you can PM to get the source:
"The naval station has a manning allowance of 125 civilian and military security forces. We are currently staffed with 97 assigned security force personnel who provide continuous protection 24 hours a day and 7 days a week, 365 days a year. Thirty-five are specially trained military personnel, the rest are civilian security officers.

    An auxiliary security force comprised of well-trained, shore-based sailors from tenant commands augments these security forces during heightened conditions of readiness. This force, combined with the personnel from ships, who are providing pier-side and ship-board security during heightened threat conditions, are the strength which compromises a defense-in-depth structure which I believe is sound.

    Recently established water-borne security forces, security booms with warning buoys and towers designed and strategically located to see miles in all directions have provided a visible deterrent to a would-be assailant by the bay."

"Second, and it is just a simple thing of communication equipment. If we have an event that occurs, either on base or off base, we have to be able to communicate that with our local authorities. And our military communications are not compatible with the civilian law enforcement and other emergency response. They have an operator on a XXX megahertz. One of our exercises determined that we needed that capability."

Another perspective:

OPENING THE GATE?: AN ANALYSIS OF MILITARY LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY OVER CIVILIAN LAWBREAKERS ON AND
OFF THE FEDERAL INSTALLATION: MILITARY LAW REVIEW Volume 161 September 1999 https://www.jagcnet.army.mil/JAGCNETINTERNET/HOMEPAGES/AC/MILITARYLAWREVIEW.NSF/20a66345129fe3d885256e5b00571830/670ad594f019a54885256e5b0057789b/$FILE/ATTW1SM4/Volume161Gilligan.pdf

Edit to add:
The Army Civilian Police and Security Guard Program
http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/r190_56.pdf






 
GreyMatter said:
Isnt that because of the lack of personnel, too many of the MPs currently working overseas? 

that might be it.  civi's cost money, and i can't imagine cash-strapped bases forking out cash for civiis unless they have no other choice.

not many mps i know want 'shit detail' of manning a gate at 3am stateside. it's very boring.  most would rather be in iraq then.  :)

r
 
Heh....
Civy cops on US bases and Commissionnaires manning the gates on Cdn ones...

Wonder who has the more effective force?
 
razorguns said:
that might be it.  civi's cost money, and i can't imagine cash-strapped bases forking out cash for civiis unless they have no other choice.

not many mps i know want 'shit detail' of manning a gate at 3am stateside. it's very boring.  most would rather be in iraq then.  :)

r

It isn't about funding at specific posts or what MPs want to do. The Army is trying to build a brigade based force structure that has maximum deployability. Every Soldier who isn't standing on a gate can be freed up for a deployable unit. The Army has an end-strength that has to be met every year and every Soldier that can get cut lose from TRADOC, non-deployable FORSCOM units, etc, impacts the manning of deployable units. 
 
Red 6 said:
Every Soldier who isn't standing on a gate can be freed up for a deployable unit.  

i dunno about that.  There are people in my unit who want to go to iraq, some even mp's - and can't.  A 'thanks but no thanks'.  Even offering to switch to a deployable unit, whatever it takes.

Funding issues?  Strategic Issues?  Who knows, but probably.

r
 
geo said:
Heh....
Civy cops on US bases and Commissionnaires manning the gates on Cdn ones...

Wonder who has the more effective force?

US DoD police have been around for some time, at least 15-years.  Several years ago I remember being impressed with their armed presence at a base I was working on.  Although they were armed, they had many of the same rules of lawful search that a Canadian Commissionaire does, or any peace officer.  Although, admittedly, they do more of it.  They could search your bags, but they couldn't touch your person (including your clothes) unless they had cause (i.e. document sticking out of pocket).  Of course motor vehicles could be searched entering DoD property.  However, during visits in the last few years I've seen an increase in the number of metal detectors.

From what I saw they were an effective security force who freed up the MPs to concentrate on 'some' patrolling, and those parts of their deployed function that can't be handled by civilians.

http://www.military.com/Careers/Content1?file=law_dod_police.htm&area=Content

http://mysite.verizon.net/k9ofcbtkunkel/id18.html

 
Whether or not individual Soldiers want to be deployed (especially in the National Guard since it's so state-centric) has nothing to do with rotational schedules, which in the US Army are dictated by DA based on requirements coming in from the joint and unified commands (i. e. CENTCOM.) FORSCOM takes those mission taskings and finds the correct mix of units that are not currently deployed and issues the approproate deployment orders. I may not particularly agree with putting civilian police on the gates, but it does, taken as a whole, free up MPs for deployable units. The US Army is in the middle of a major plus-up of its wartime deployment system. MPs, Civil Affairs, and so forth, are a major, major factor in our current fights in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Once a unit (any unit) has received a warning order for deployment, nobody is going anywhere unless it's for derogatory/punative reasons or ETS unless the unit has been stop-lossed. Even Chapter discharges can get put in abeyance depending on the circumstances. razorguns, I take it you're in the CA National Guard. They have their own manpower needs and every unit has to maintain their end-strength, even those that are currently not in the deployment cycle. If folks want to get in a deployable unit, they need to either find a unit in-state or do an IST to a deploying unit in another state. It takes a lot of legwork, but it can be done. We had two Soldiers from outside of Oregon in my company when we deployed to Southern Watch in 2000. The CA National Guard has been sending units into CENTCOM's AOR for quite a few years now so it doesn't surprise me that folks are staying in their units unless there's a darned good reaon for a transfer.
 
I dont see the big deal with using civilian police on the bases.  The Navy has been doing it for a while at some installations.  I've been going to San Diego Naval station for over 2 years and the gates are manned by DOD civilian police and they take their duties as seriously as any US MP i have ever met.
 
Red 6 said:
If folks want to get in a deployable unit, they need to either find a unit in-state or do an IST to a deploying unit in another state. It takes a lot of legwork, but it can be done.

for most - that's a lot of work, and jesus it took me freakin' 7 months just to get sgli taken out of my paycheck!  welcome to the efficient army machine :)

r
 
Back
Top