Stonington residents react to end of extra police patrols
Town saves $89k, but residents—like the vote that ended the police contract—are closely divided
March 11, 2026
By Jessica Hardy
Christy Shahan casts her vote at Stonington’s town meeting. Photo by Jessica Hardy.
Residents of Stonington are having mixed emotions about the recent town vote ending regular patrols by Hancock County sheriff’s deputies.
Stonington voters decided 27-25 not to renew the three-day-a-week patrol contract, which would have cost the town $89,000 annually. The vote, by ballot, was taken at the March 2 town meeting, where approximately 50 residents decided the issue for the town of 1,000 people.
In the days afterward, however, some residents said they are concerned with the recent vandalism of Burnt Cove Market as well as drug use in the town, and what that might mean without extra police coverage. Others said they feel the money could be used for other Stonington activities that would benefit the town and don’t want to pay more when they already pay county taxes.
“I think it’s concerning due to recent events of vandalism and drug use. The Island is not as safe as it once was. However, I have noticed an increased [police] presence recently,” said resident Leslie Rice, one of several residents contacted by The Rising Tide for their reactions.
Kiley Pitts, another resident, said she’s taking a wait and see attitude.
“I think that there is an assumption that the police provide coverage whether we pay them or not, and the community has gotten used to having a regular police presence without thinking about why they are here. It will be interesting to see how long it takes for the ‘where are the cops when you need them?’”
The Hancock County Sheriff’s Office provides taxpayer-funded police services to Stonington and eight other towns on the Blue Hill Peninsula. But the contract that was narrowly rejected by Stonington voters would have ensured a police presence in town three days a week.
“I would much rather see those funds directed toward a Stonington-based initiative.”
“[Deputies] become more familiar with the community that serves the people as patterns, seasonal changes and challenges that you guys may face. Perhaps most importantly, it provides your assurance to the residents knowing that there’s a law enforcement presence, not just passing through, but present and engaged,” Lt. Dakota Dupuis of the sheriff’s office said at town meeting.
Jill Larrabee, another resident, said she is concerned voters don’t understand the issues facing in the town.
“I don’t know if those people [who voted against the patrols] have a realistic view of the actual crime that happens in Stonington,” Larrabee said. “There was an event where we had criminal activity next door to us in our rental property and if there hadn’t been sheriffs patrolling around the neighborhood afterwards, I would have felt incredibly unsafe.”
Anecdotally, opinions are mixed about the decision.
“I understand they will still come, but from what distance?”
“It doesn’t matter to me either way really. I only feel bad about it later on if they want the police department back. I was a little surprised. I know the money’s so tight right now for everyone, that [they are] thinking this is going to save them a lot of money,” Dan Oliver said.
Some Stonington residents were in favor of rejecting the patrol contract, saying now the town can put money back into its budget.
“I’m very much in favor of discontinuing the additional police coverage. We’re the only town from Surry to Stonington paying for extra coverage when we already pay for coverage through existing county taxes. I would much rather see those funds directed toward a Stonington-based initiative,” said Morgan Eaton, a real estate brokerage owner.
Resident Lindsey Carter agreed.
“I am pleased to see that the Stonington residents did not want to continue the contract with HCSO. I feel it can be a good opportunity for the sheriff’s department to regroup and see what services they can offer on top of traffic violations and the standard calls they are required to enforce. I look forward to seeing if they are able to reinvent the services they could offer,” Carter said.
But Christy Shahan, a local fire department volunteer, said she feels the cost of patrols was worth it.
“As a taxpayer in this community I can try to see the point of view of not paying extra, but I feel once divided [among taxpayers] it’s a drop in the bucket. And I would choose the extra support and safety that having the contract gives us,” Shahan said.
“I understand they will still come, but from what distance?” Shahan asked. “Will we see more incidents without them patrolling? Only time will tell, I guess.”
