Brewster County Sheriff Ronny Dodson confirmed that border wall contractors paid off-duty sheriff’s deputies $900 for 12-hour security shifts at a remote construction camp near Terlingua, explaining that the higher-than-usual rate reflected the location, short notice and difficulty attracting deputies to the assignments.
Dodson provided the explanation to Big Bend Reporter following an Oct. 30 investigation by The Big Bend Sentinel involving body-camera footage of construction workers making vulgar sexual remarks about a woman involved in a property dispute near the camp.
The sheriff said his department’s customary rate for off-duty security assignments is $50 an hour, or $600 for a 12-hour shift. The contractors paid $900 per shift, equivalent to $75 an hour, because of the circumstances surrounding the assignment.
Dodson said the contractors initially proposed paying $500 a day.
“They wanted to pay 500 a day, and I told him no, if an off-duty officer is going down there, it’ll be for 900,” Dodson wrote in a text message to Big Bend Reporter.
The sheriff said the security arrangements originated after threats were reportedly made against the construction camp. Company representatives requested additional law enforcement patrols, but Dodson said he could not divert deputies from their regular responsibilities to provide continuous security for a private construction operation.
“I told them we don’t have enough men to drive around your place all day because they have to take care of the people in Terlingua,” Dodson wrote.
The Sheriff’s Office has four authorized deputy positions in southern Brewster County, Dodson said, but only three are filled. That leaves the region operating at 75% of its authorized deputy staffing.
Rather than dedicate on-duty personnel to the construction camp, Dodson said he offered the contractors the opportunity to hire deputies for privately compensated, off-duty security assignments.
Security assignments followed threats against construction camp
Dodson said the security arrangements were not originally related to the confrontation featured in the Sentinel’s reporting.
Instead, he said contractors had reported receiving threats and wanted deputies to conduct frequent patrols around the construction camp.
He told company representatives that the department could not provide dedicated patrols at the expense of regular law enforcement coverage, but deputies could accept off-duty security work.
Dodson said the $900 rate reflected the challenge of persuading an officer to spend 12 hours at an isolated location, especially with little advance notice.
He recalled taking similar assignments himself before becoming sheriff, including extra shifts he worked to earn money to purchase a propane refrigerator.
At the time, he said, there was no cellular coverage or satellite internet service to help pass the time.
He described the experience as exceptionally lonely and boring, saying 12 hours at such a location could wear on someone.
At $900 per shift, a deputy working seven consecutive 12-hour assignments would earn $6,300 in gross compensation. Thirty such shifts would total $27,000.
Dodson did not provide the total number of shifts worked or the aggregate amount paid by the contractors.
Deputies receive payments directly from private employers
Dodson said companies seeking off-duty law enforcement security contact the Sheriff’s Office, which posts available assignments on a board for deputies interested in accepting them.
The private employer pays the deputy directly. The money does not pass through the county’s payroll system.
Deputies are responsible for collecting payment and handling their own tax obligations, Dodson said.
Asked about municipal police departments that collect payments from private employers and then compensate officers, Dodson acknowledged that such arrangements exist.
He said sheriff’s departments commonly use the direct-payment system and that he was unaware of a sheriff’s office using the municipal-style arrangement discussed during the interview.
The system allows deputies to earn additional income outside their regular county employment while permitting the department to coordinate assignments without directly handling the compensation.
Sheriff says lewd-comments video does not tell the entire story
The security payments came under scrutiny following reporting by The Big Bend Sentinel about body-camera footage recorded in August during a dispute over construction of a fence at a worker camp along Highway 118 north of Terlingua.
The Sentinel reported that a woman complained construction workers had entered property she claimed rights to, removed no-trespassing signs and intimidated her and a companion.
After deputies responded to the dispute, they questioned construction workers at another location.
During that encounter, contractor Jason Dupuis Shaffer made a vulgar sexual remark about the woman, prompting laughter from other workers.
Deputy Preston Bolton subsequently made a comment about what the men could do while remaining on their side of the property, prompting additional laughter.
Dodson told the Sentinel that Bolton maintained his remark referred to an earlier suggestion about bringing the woman wine, rather than endorsing the contractor’s sexual comments.
The Sentinel’s reporting detailed the exchange and the concerns it generated among local women and opponents of the border wall project.
Dodson told Big Bend Reporter that he believes significant portions of the encounter have been taken out of context.
He said the confrontation originated in a complicated property dispute and that his department had taken steps to address the conduct of those involved.
“I’m gonna put out a message to everybody basically saying that both individuals, mine and the guy from the man camp construction, have been dealt with,” Dodson wrote.
The sheriff said disciplinary action had been taken but that he could not disclose confidential personnel information detailing the measures imposed on his deputy.
“You can be assured they were,” he wrote.
The sheriff’s account does not change the words captured on the video, but he maintains that the surrounding circumstances and subsequent actions by his department are important to understanding the incident.
Property dispute involved unresolved inheritance, sheriff says
Dodson also provided additional details about the property dispute that preceded the recorded exchange.
According to the sheriff, the woman initially sought to prevent construction workers from entering property she intended to purchase.
Deputies issued criminal trespass warnings to workers after receiving complaints about the property.
However, Dodson said his department subsequently discovered that the woman did not yet own the land and was not communicating with the person who had inherited it.
The sheriff said the property had been inherited by a man who had not completed the probate process.
Dodson said he helped identify the appropriate person and directed the woman toward him so she could pursue purchasing the land before construction companies acquired it.
He said the heir was interested in selling the property to help pay probate expenses and provide additional spending money.
Dodson believed the woman had subsequently made progress toward acquiring the property but said he had not verified whether the transaction had been completed.
The Sentinel reported that the woman eventually established a legal right to the property sufficient to prevent trespassing and file complaints.
The differing accounts highlight the complexity of the dispute. The sheriff’s explanation concerns the woman’s ownership status and efforts to purchase the land, while the Sentinel’s reporting also addresses her asserted legal right to exclude others from it.
Legal ownership and the right to control access to property are not necessarily identical questions.
Deputies may use county patrol vehicles during private security work
Dodson also confirmed that deputies are permitted to use their county-issued take-home patrol vehicles while performing privately compensated security assignments.
Asked about the use of taxpayer-funded vehicles for private employment, he cited a 2006 Texas attorney general opinion issued by then-Attorney General Greg Abbott.
Opinion GA-0480, issued Oct. 31, 2006, concluded that sheriffs may authorize deputies to use county patrol vehicles for off-duty security work without reimbursing the county, provided the arrangement meets constitutional requirements.
The opinion requires that the predominant purpose be preserving the peace within the county, that the sheriff maintain control over the vehicles and that the county receive an actual public benefit.
The opinion does not provide unconditional permission to use county property for private employment.
A newer attorney general opinion, KP-0524, issued Aug. 20, 2026, also addresses county-owned vehicles used by deputies and constables for private employment, including the authority of sheriffs and commissioners courts to regulate their use.
Whether a particular security assignment meets the applicable constitutional requirements depends on its circumstances and the county’s policies.
Sheriff reports 14 public information requests
Dodson said Monday that his department received 14 public information requests over the weekend following the Sentinel’s reporting and circulation of the body-camera footage.
The requests arrived for processing when county personnel returned to work Monday, he said.
The requests fall under the Texas Public Information Act, which governs access to records held by Texas state and local governmental bodies.
The Sentinel obtained the body-camera footage and other Sheriff’s Office records through the public information process. Its investigation also examined communications among deputies and law enforcement responses to tensions surrounding the construction camp.
Dodson said he intends to release a public statement providing additional context about the controversy.
“When my statement comes out, be sure and read it,” he wrote.
The sheriff’s explanation of the security arrangements provides a separate look at how privately funded border wall construction operations interact with local law enforcement agencies that are already managing staffing shortages and extensive geographic responsibilities.
For Brewster County, those arrangements include $900 payments for 12-hour off-duty security shifts, direct compensation from private employers to deputies and the authorized use of county patrol vehicles.
Dodson maintains that the higher security rate was necessary to attract deputies to isolated assignments without sacrificing the department’s regular law enforcement responsibilities.
The Sentinel’s investigation focused primarily on the conduct captured in the body-camera footage and the concerns raised by residents. Dodson’s additional disclosures explain how the security work was arranged and why contractors paid substantially more than the department’s usual off-duty rate.
