Should Northfield Police Stay or Leave During ICE Operations?

The Minneapolis shooting raises urgent questions about duration of presence

Jan 10, 2026

On Wednesday morning in Minneapolis, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer shot and killed Renee Nicole Macklin Good, a 37-year-old woman whose vehicle was blocking ICE vehicles. Minneapolis police were not present during the operation. They arrived after shots were fired.

The incident raises questions about Police Chief Jeff Schroepfer's recent statement that Northfield police "do not remain on-site to observe or document federal operations." If NPD officers disengage early and then a traffic situation, use of force incident, or medical emergency occurs, who handles it?

Analysis and questions for the Chief below.

What Happened in Minneapolis

On Wednesday, January 7, an ICE officer fatally shot 37-year-old Renee Nicole Macklin Good during federal immigration enforcement operations in south Minneapolis. Minneapolis City Council members called Good an observer; federal officials characterized her as a violent rioter; her mother said she was caring for neighbors.

Video of the incident shows masked ICE officers approaching Good’s Honda Pilot, which was stopped in the middle of Portland Avenue. One officer told her to get out of the car and tried to open the door. Good slowly backed up, then pulled forward. An an agent fired three shots from the side/front-quarter area at her. Good’s vehicle traveled a short distance before crashing into a parked car.

Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara said his officers went to the scene after being told that federal agents had fired shots. He said officers responding to the scene found Good with a gunshot wound to the head and attempted life-saving measures. He also said Good was blocking ICE vehicles, a traffic management situation.

Good's actions were contrary to principles I outlined in my previous article about observing ICE operations: don't block vehicles, don't refuse direct orders from federal agents, and don't resist. But we cannot know what Good was thinking during a frightening encounter with masked, armed agents. A video shows rapid commands and agent movement around the vehicle.

The question of whether her attempt to leave justified lethal force (whether an agent "fearing for his life" needed to fire three shots) is exactly what's now under investigation. The FBI is investigating the shooting. Minnesota's Bureau of Criminal Apprehension attempted to participate but was barred by federal authorities from accessing evidence and witnesses, exactly the kind of accountability gap that concerns local officials.

People protest as law enforcement officers attend to the scene of the shooting involving federal law enforcement agents, Wednesday, Jan. 7, 2026, in Minneapolis. AP Photo/Tom Baker

This raises a critical timing question: when do traffic and public safety concerns 'get resolved' during a federal operation?

Chief Schroepfer’s Current Policy on Duration of Presence

In his December 17 response to questions I raised in my previous article about NPD’s role during ICE operations, Chief Schroepfer addressed what happens after officers respond to initial concerns:

Duration of Presence: NPD does not remain on-site to observe or document federal operations. Once the specific public safety or traffic concerns are resolved, our officers disengage.

This statement creates an important question: When do “traffic concerns” get resolved during an ICE operation?

The Chief also described NPD’s role during these operations:

Perimeter Role: A “perimeter” role means maintaining public safety, managing traffic, and preventing bystanders from being harmed. It does not involve assisting with detentions, arrests, or investigative activity by federal agencies.

And he committed to responding to 911 calls:

911 Response: NPD will always respond to 911 calls involving immediate threats to life, safety, or significant public order concerns, regardless of other agencies operating in the area. Our response is limited to addressing the public safety issue presented, not facilitating federal enforcement activity.

But the policy of disengaging “once the specific public safety or traffic concerns are resolved” assumes those concerns only arise at the beginning of an operation.

What happened in Minneapolis suggests otherwise.

The Stated Perimeter Role vs. Early Disengagement

Chief Schroepfer describes three core functions of NPD’s perimeter role: maintaining public safety, managing traffic, and preventing bystanders from being harmed.

What does that mean in practice? It could mean managing traffic when observers block vehicles. It could mean intervening when protesters throw objects at agents, or when agents use excessive force against protesters. It could mean documenting when an agent confiscates an observer’s camera. It could mean providing medical response if anyone is injured. It could mean verifying that masked individuals are actually federal agents and not impersonators.

All of these are traditional local police functions. None of them constitute “assisting with immigration enforcement.” But NPD can’t perform any of these functions if officers have already left.

The situation on Portland Avenue in Minneapolis demonstrates why this matters. Community members, alerted by whistles, arrived at the scene. Renee Nicole Macklin Good’s Honda Pilot was positioned blocking ICE vehicles; whether she drove there deliberately or was already present is unclear from available video. An eyewitness told MPR News that ICE agents gave her conflicting orders: one told her to drive away, another ordered her out of the car.

But Minneapolis police weren’t there. They had not established a perimeter presence during the operation. When this confused, escalating traffic situation arose (a situation squarely within local police expertise/responsibility), ICE agents handled it themselves.

The result: Good is dead.

If Minneapolis police had been present in their perimeter role, they could have been the ones managing the traffic situation. They’re also trained in de-escalation, they’re accountable to local elected officials, and they’re familiar with community dynamics. And they also don’t have the same operational mindset as federal agents conducting immigration enforcement. Whether that would have prevented the shooting is unknowable. But it would have provided what Minneapolis now lacks: an official local witness with body camera footage and incident reports.

The Competing Concerns

Chief Schroepfer’s disengagement policy likely reflects a genuine concern: community perception.

If Northfield police remain on-site throughout ICE operations, residents may perceive NPD as assisting with immigration enforcement. That perception undermines community trust, particularly among immigrant residents. It also makes local officers targets of protest.

This concern is real. In Minneapolis on Wednesday, tensions spilled over after the shooting. Video from the scene shows crowds throwing snowballs at departing officers, and local reporting described snowballs thrown at federal vehicles before agents used chemical irritants. In that moment, many protesters weren’t distinguishing between federal agents and local police: any law-enforcement presence read as ‘ICE.’

The argument for disengagement: Maintaining visible separation from federal immigration enforcement protects community trust in local police.

There's also a practical resource concern. Northfield has limited officers on duty at any given time. If NPD maintains a presence at an ICE operation and then a car accident, domestic violence call, or other emergency occurs elsewhere in the city, officers may need to leave the federal operation to respond. Duration of presence doesn't mean officers stay regardless of other public safety needs. It means they remain unless called elsewhere.

But disengagement creates a different problem: accountability gaps.

If NPD isn’t present when public safety or traffic situations arise during ICE operations, they can’t:

Fulfill their stated perimeter role (managing traffic, preventing bystander harm)
Provide immediate medical response if someone is injured
Document what occurred through official body camera footage
Serve as independent witnesses to federal conduct
Intervene if they witness conduct that “clearly appears unlawful” as required by MN Statute 626.8475. (MN law requires MN peace officers to intercede with other peace officers; authority regarding federal agents is limited/unclear.)

The case for staying: Public safety and accountability require a local police presence throughout operations, not just at the outset.

Both concerns are legitimate. The question is which one should prevail, or whether there’s a middle path.

How Two Cities Define Local Roles During ICE Operations

I haven’t found any other local U.S. law enforcement agency with an explicit policy requiring officers to maintain a presence throughout a federal immigration operation. But I did find two departments, one in Minnesota, one in a sanctuary city, have adopted practices that directly confront the dilemmas raised by the Minneapolis shooting: presence without participation, and documentation without interference.

Maple Grove, Minnesota articulated its approach in a January 6 Facebook statement. Key paragraph:

Maple Grove Police Department is legally required to ensure safety for all. That may involve assisting with crowd control as part of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations. Our officers will work to de-escalate situations but will not participate in enforcing immigration law. If protests or gatherings occur, our officers may respond to assess whether the activity is lawful, ensure public safety, protect everyone present, and maintain the peace for those exercising their First Amendment rights.”

This directly addresses the Minneapolis scenario. When Renee Good blocked ICE vehicles and community members arrived at the scene, there were no local officers present to manage the traffic obstruction or de-escalate the confrontation. Maple Grove's policy explicitly commits officers to maintaining presence during such situations, responding when protests or gatherings occur, working to de-escalate, and ensuring public safety for everyone present.

Seattle, Washington has gone further on documentation. After officers encountered ICE agents making arrests on Aurora Avenue North on January 7, 2026, Police Chief Shon Barnes stated that officers “documented the interaction after speaking to supervisors.” The department confirmed that “body and dash camera video of the incident exists and is being prepared for later release.” Officers also verified that the individuals conducting the operation were federal agents.

Seattle’s approach addresses two key accountability mechanisms: verification (confirming that masked individuals are actually federal agents) and documentation (preserving body camera evidence of what occurred).

After encountering ICE agents making arrests, Seattle officers verified the individuals were federal agents, documented the interaction, and preserved body and dash camera footage. These standard police practices created an accountability record without participating in immigration enforcement.

Both cities show it’s possible to stay present, serve public safety, and remain independent from immigration enforcement, a standard Northfield has yet to articulate.

What Northfield Still Needs to Know From Chief Schroepfer

Chief Schroepfer’s December 17 response provided helpful clarity about NPD’s role. But the Minneapolis shooting raises questions his response didn’t address:

1. Does “perimeter role” require duration of presence?

What Chief Schroepfer said: The Chief states NPD’s perimeter role includes “managing traffic, maintaining public safety, and preventing bystanders from being harmed.”

What Maple Grove does: Maple Grove Police Department’s January 6 statement commits to maintaining presence specifically when community members gather: “If protests or gatherings occur, our officers may respond to assess whether the activity is lawful, ensure public safety, protect everyone present, and maintain the peace for those exercising their First Amendment rights.”

Questions for Chief Schroepfer:

If public safety is the point of the perimeter role, how can that role end when the operation is still underway? If officers disengage early, who manages situations that arise during the operation, for example, a resident blocking vehicles, protesters throwing objects at agents, agents confiscating observers' cameras, medical emergencies, or use of force concerns? Maple Grove explicitly commits to maintaining presence when community members gather during ICE operations. Does NPD's perimeter role include a similar commitment?

2. Will NPD document federal operations?

What Chief Schroepfer said: The Chief stated NPD “does not remain on-site to observe or document federal operations.”

What Seattle does: After Seattle officers encountered ICE agents making arrests, Police Chief Shon Barnes stated officers “documented the interaction after speaking to supervisors.” The department confirmed that “body and dash camera video of the incident exists and is being prepared for later release.” Officers also “verified the individuals were there conducting federal law enforcement duties.”

Questions for Chief Schroepfer:

Does this mean officers won’t use dash or body cameras even when initially present? If officers witness concerning conduct but don’t document it, how does that serve accountability? If an agent confiscates an observer’s camera or phone, will NPD document that potential First Amendment violation? Will officers verify agents’ identities? Seattle treats these as standard police incident documentation, not immigration enforcement assistance. Does NPD policy allow similar practices?

3. Who manages citizens during federal operations?

What Chief Schroepfer said: The Chief described NPD’s perimeter role as “managing traffic and preventing bystanders from being harmed,” but also stated officers “do not remain on-site to observe or document federal operations.”

What Maple Grove does: Maple Grove Police commits to responding when “protests or gatherings occur” during ICE operations, explicitly working “to de-escalate situations” and “ensure public safety, protect everyone present, and maintain the peace for those exercising their First Amendment rights.”

Questions for Chief Schroepfer:

When Northfield residents observe or protest ICE operations (which is their First Amendment right), who has responsibility for managing those citizens? Is it NPD’s role (as part of “managing traffic” and “preventing bystander harm”), or do federal agents handle citizen management themselves? If protesters throw objects or physically interfere with agents, does NPD intervene? If agents use force against lawful observers, does NPD intervene? Maple Grove frames crowd management and de-escalation as core police functions during ICE operations. Does NPD take the same approach? Crowd safety is not a federal responsibility, it’s a local one. If Northfield police aren’t managing residents, no one is.

These aren’t rhetorical questions. They’re practical matters that will determine what happens if an ICE operation in Northfield takes a dangerous turn.

I sent these questions to Police Chief Jeff Schroepfer earlier today and will provide an update next week with his response.

Northfield Chief of Police Jeff Schroepfer

My Take

Chief Schroepfer says Northfield police provide a ‘perimeter role’ during ICE operations: maintaining public safety, managing traffic, and preventing bystanders from being harmed. But he also says officers ‘disengage’ once initial concerns are resolved and ‘do not remain on-site to observe or document.’

The Minneapolis shooting exposes the problem with this approach. Community members, alerted by whistles, arrived at the scene of an ICE operation. Renee Nicole Macklin Good’s vehicle was blocking ICE vehicles on Portland Avenue. An eyewitness told MPR News that ICE agents gave her conflicting orders: one told her to drive away, another ordered her out of the car. This is exactly the kind of confused, escalating situation where local police traffic management and de-escalation expertise could have mattered. But Minneapolis police weren’t present. ICE agents handled it themselves. Good is dead.

If local police had been present in their perimeter role, they would have been the ones managing the traffic situation, sorting out the conflicting orders, and preventing the escalation. That’s their job, their authority, their expertise/responsibility under local public-safety norms.

The Chief is right that NPD shouldn’t assist with immigration enforcement. But managing traffic, maintaining public safety, and preventing harm to bystanders during federal operations ARE legitimate local police functions. You can’t fulfill those functions if you disengage early, or if you’re not present at all.

Yes, officers may need to leave if called to another emergency elsewhere in the city. But that’s different from a policy of routinely disengaging once “initial concerns are resolved.” The Minneapolis situation shows that concerns aren’t always resolved at the start. They can arise throughout an operation.

Disengagement might avoid the perception of collaboration with ICE. But it also means NPD isn’t there when perimeter situations arise; not just traffic problems, but use of force concerns, First Amendment violations, medical emergencies, or any of the public safety issues that fall squarely within local police responsibility. And it means no local documentation when federal operations turn deadly.

If NPD’s role is truly about public safety, traffic management, and preventing harm to bystanders, they need to maintain presence throughout the operation, not just respond to initial concerns and then leave.

Northfield.org

Discussion about this post

Ready for more?