What Northfield Police Will and Won’t Do During ICE Operations

Chief Schroepfer responds in writing to questions about ICE operations and local police involvement, followed by commentary

Northfield Police Chief Jeff Schroepfer provided written responses last week to questions I raised in January about how his department handles ICE operations. The answers build on his December responses about the November 11 ICE arrest of Northfielder Adán Núñez Gonzalez and address questions that have taken on new urgency following the fatal shootings of two observers by federal agents in Minneapolis, the January 16 Northfield High School student walkout, and the January 26 Fairfield Inn protest that was declared unlawful.

The Chief’s answers included:

• Use of body cameras and drones

• How NPD handles protesters who physically interfere with an ICE detainment

• How officers balance First Amendment rights with public safety

• The extent to which NPD maintains presence during ICE operations to manage crowds and prevent escalation

Below are the Chief’s complete responses from last week, followed by my commentary.

Hi Griff,

Taking a breather to reply:

I appreciate the questions and the opportunity to clarify, because this discussion mixes hypotheticals, assumptions, and real-world legal and operational limits and it’s important not to blur those together.

During the student walkout, Northfield Police were present for traffic safety, student safety, and crowd management. The limited drone use in that context was lawful and focused on situational awareness and safety, not on monitoring speech, ideology, or immigration issues. It was unrelated to immigration enforcement.

Northfield Police do not assist with immigration enforcement. That policy is firm. At the same time, we do not walk away from our responsibility to respond to immediate public-safety concerns, regardless of who is involved.

To address the scenarios raised:

If ICE were present and conducting a lawful federal operation:

NPD’s role would be limited to addressing imminent safety issues only, such as traffic hazards, medical emergencies, or violence. Once those concerns are stabilized, disengagement is appropriate to avoid even the appearance of assisting federal enforcement. That decision is fact-specific and time-limited, not automatic or ideological.

If NPD responds to an incident related to ICE:

When officers have a lawful public-safety role and are actively engaged, body-worn cameras and squad cameras are activated in accordance with Minnesota law and department policy, just as they are for any other call for service.

Use of drones:

Northfield Police will not use department drones to monitor or document ICE activities. Drone deployment is governed by Minnesota statute, department policy, and staffing limitations. We do not have the statutory authority—or the resources—to conduct generalized aerial monitoring of another agency’s operations. Drones are used only when there is a clearly defined, lawful public-safety purpose tied to NPD’s role.

If students or others surrounded a vehicle:

Speech alone—even loud, offensive, or confrontational speech—remains protected. However, students or others cannot physically obstruct or block a vehicle. Intervention would occur if behavior crossed into physical interference, obstruction, or safety threats. Our response would also include protecting the ICE officers’ safety and keeping people out of the roadway. Any action would prioritize de‑escalation, separation, and public safety, not enforcement of viewpoints.

If force were used by any party:

NPD would respond by addressing immediate threats to life and safety within our authority. We do not direct, supervise, or oversee federal use-of-force decisions unless a clear and present danger exists that falls within our jurisdiction.

If counter-protesters were present:

Our role would be to protect everyone’s right to lawful expression, separate groups when necessary to prevent violence, and enforce laws only when conduct—not speech—becomes unlawful.

Traffic and public safety:

Safety is a top priority for Northfield Police. During the walkout, vehicles were stopped when students were observed engaging in unsafe behavior or moving violations. For example, I personally stopped a vehicle for students hanging out of the windows of a moving truck. Enforcement focuses on preventing harm and maintaining safety, not limiting lawful expression.

One important point underlying these questions is context. Northfield is not Minneapolis or St. Paul. Scale, staffing, agency roles, and community dynamics matter. Our approach is not to pre-script responses to every scenario drawn from other cities, but to apply consistent principles here: protect constitutional rights, prevent harm, and avoid entanglement in immigration enforcement.

I understand the desire for certainty in advance. What I can commit to is this: Northfield Police will act lawfully, proportionally, and transparently, guided by public safety—not politics, not optics, and not speculation about what might happen elsewhere.

I will add……While Northfield Police fully support lawful First Amendment expression, those rights do not allow people to block business entrances, engage in assaultive behavior, or damage property. Intervention and enforcement would occur if actions cross into unlawful conduct, while still prioritizing de‑escalation, safety, and protecting the rights of others. Peaceful speech is always protected; unlawful conduct is not.

That is the standard we hold ourselves to, and the standard the community should expect.

Take care,

Jeff

Follow-up email question for Chief Schroepfer:

Jeff,

Thanks for your detailed reply. One question remains regarding NPD’s “duration of presence” policy during ICE operations.

You wrote that once immediate public safety or traffic concerns are stabilized, it is appropriate for NPD to disengage in order to avoid the appearance of assisting federal enforcement.

However, if Northfield residents are present during an ICE operation, maintaining NPD presence can help prevent escalation. That could include de-escalating protesters before physical interference occurs, managing crowd dynamics as they develop, or addressing traffic blockades before they become hazards.

If officers leave once initial concerns are resolved, they’re no longer in a position to prevent those situations; they’re only responding after something has already gone wrong.

Given that these operations carry a real risk of escalation, including the possibility of serious harm, why not err on the side of prevention instead of on the side of avoiding the appearance of assisting federal enforcement?

Griff

Chief Schroepfer’s reply:

There isn’t a definitive, one-size-fits-all answer to duration of presence, because each situation will be different. I also don’t want to disclose what conversations we may be having about duration and tactics, i.e. Northfield Police will remain for 10 minutes, as I’m sure you can see what issues that could cause.

Prevention is absolutely part of policing, but prevention has limits when it intersects with another agency’s enforcement authority. Northfield Police cannot assume an open-ended role at federal operations based solely on the possibility that something might escalate. Doing so risks shifting our role from public safety into functional support of immigration enforcement, even if that is not our intent.

When NPD is present, our focus is on identifiable, immediate public-safety concerns—traffic hazards, medical issues, or conduct that has crossed or is clearly about to cross into unlawful behavior. If those conditions exist or begin to develop, officers respond and de-escalate as appropriate. If they do not, continued presence becomes less about prevention and more about standing by during a federal enforcement action, which is precisely what the community has asked us not to do.

It’s also important to recognize that continued presence does not always reduce risk. In some situations, a visible police perimeter can draw larger crowds, harden positions, or create the perception that local police are aligned with the federal action. Disengagement, once safety issues are addressed, can actually reduce tension rather than increase it.

If circumstances change after disengagement—crowds grow, traffic becomes unsafe, violence appears likely—NPD can and will respond again to address those specific public-safety issues. That is different from remaining indefinitely in anticipation of possible escalation.

In short, this is not a choice between prevention and safety. It is about using our authority narrowly and intentionally: being present when there is a clear public-safety role, documenting and acting when we are engaged, and disengaging when that role no longer exists. That balance is how we protect people’s safety while also honoring our commitment not to participate in or appear to facilitate immigration enforcement.

Jeff

---

My Take

Chief Schroepfer’s responses represent a substantive engagement with difficult questions about competing values: maintaining community trust by visibly distancing NPD from federal immigration enforcement, while also ensuring accountability when those operations occur in Northfield. Both concerns are legitimate. The Chief is navigating real tensions; residents want clarity that NPD isn’t collaborating with ICE, and they also want assurance that someone is present to witness and document what happens.

The threshold problem

The Chief’s framework relies on “fact-specific judgment” to determine when NPD maintains presence during ICE operations. Officers respond when there are “immediate threats to life, safety, or significant public order concerns,” then disengage “once those concerns are stabilized” to avoid appearing to assist federal enforcement.

But residents observing an ICE operation have no way to anticipate how that judgment will be applied in practice. Without clearer, observable standards, they can’t tell what would justify continued presence and what would be considered “stabilized” enough to warrant disengagement.

Without operational clarity about when the threshold is met, “fact-specific judgment” becomes discretionary in ways residents can’t anticipate. The question isn’t whether NPD should exercise judgment; of course, they must. The question is what factors inform that judgment in ways the public can understand and evaluate.

Pattern of rapid escalation

Events in Minneapolis over the past month demonstrate that serious concerns can arise not only at the beginning of ICE operations but also during them. Renee Nicole Macklin Good was shot and killed on January 7, and Alex Pretti was shot and killed on January 24, each within seconds of rapid escalation during ICE-related encounters. In both cases, the individuals involved were not the targets of the enforcement action itself. Their actions, blocking a vehicle and filming a confrontation, were followed by the use of lethal force within seconds.

This pattern doesn’t prove that local police presence prevents federal agents from using deadly force. But it does show that the most serious accountability gaps can arise in the middle of operations, not only at their outset. If local officers disengage after initial crowd management, they are no longer in a position to witness or document what happens next.

The Chief is right that “prevention has limits when it intersects with another agency’s enforcement authority.” NPD officers can’t stop federal agents from conducting immigration enforcement. Documentation is not the same as prevention, but it is essential to accountability.

Documentation gap

The Chief explained that body cameras activate “when officers are actively engaged in law enforcement activity.” But if engagement during ICE operations is brief, limited to traffic control or initial crowd management, the resulting record may capture little of what unfolds afterward.

The November 11 arrest of Adán Núñez Gonzalez illustrates the challenge. Northfield Police were present at the scene, as shown in a publicly available photograph published by the Sahan Journal. In a December 10 written statement posted on the department’s Facebook page, Chief Schroepfer did not mention that his officers were present at the arrest, how long they remained, or what they observed. The breaking of the vehicle window and the forcible extraction of Núñez Gonzalez were documented by bystanders and his son, who captured video, rather than by local police.

This does not imply that officers acted improperly. It reflects how a limited period of engagement can result in a limited public record, particularly if escalation occurs after local police have disengaged. How does brief presence serve accountability if the most critical moments go undocumented?

Whose community?

The Chief stated that continued police presence during ICE operations is “precisely what the community has asked us not to do.” It’s not clear which community voices informed that characterization.

Northfield Supporting Neighbors (NSN), a local organization directly engaged with immigrant community concerns, has not communicated a position on NPD’s duration-of-presence policy to the department. NSN does not speak for all immigrants, and Northfield’s immigrant community includes people with differing perspectives.

If community input is shaping policy on when NPD maintains presence, residents deserve clarity about whose voices are being heard and through what channels. This does not mean the Chief is wrong about community sentiment, but residents deserve a clearer sense of how those perspectives inform decisions that affect accountability during federal operations in Northfield.

A testable standard

The Chief is right that continued police presence does not always reduce risk, and that visible police perimeters can draw larger crowds or harden positions. He is also right that NPD cannot commit to indefinite presence when officers may need to respond to higher-priority emergencies elsewhere.

But there is a middle ground between remaining throughout every operation and disengaging once initial concerns are resolved. One possible operational standard would be for NPD to maintain presence until federal vehicles depart the scene, observers disperse, or officers are called to a higher-priority emergency.

Such a standard would not dictate tactics, visibility, or footprint. It would provide clearer expectations for residents while respecting the operational constraints the Chief describes.

Bottom line

Both concerns the Chief is balancing, avoiding the appearance of ICE collaboration and ensuring accountability, are legitimate. But accountability cannot depend on lucky timing. At present, residents have little way of knowing when NPD will maintain presence during ICE operations beyond “fact-specific judgment,” or how to evaluate NPD’s role after the fact.

The policy is clear on its guiding principle: disengagement to avoid assisting federal enforcement. What remains unclear is the conditions under which that principle is overridden when public safety and accountability require a continued presence. Clarity on those thresholds would not resolve every tension, but it would make the policy intelligible to the public it is meant to serve.

Related reporting on local police responses to ICE operations

Should you call 911 on ICE? What can local police do, if anything?
(MPR News, Jan. 13)
Guidance for Minnesota residents on when and how to involve local police during ICE operations, and what legal authority local departments have.

“It’s All Just Going Down the Toilet”: Police Chiefs Fume at ICE Tactics
(New York Times, Jan. 30)
Police chiefs nationwide express frustration with federal agents’ operational approach and lack of coordination with local departments.

St. Peter Police Chief Intervenes, Prevents Federal Agents from Arresting Resident
(MPR News, Jan. 30)
A Minnesota police chief took the unusual step of directly blocking an ICE arrest, citing concerns about tactics and community trust.

As Immigration Crackdown Spreads Beyond Minneapolis, the Small Town of Northfield Resists
(MPR News, Feb. 3)
Coverage of Northfield’s community response to ICE operations and local activism.

Minneapolis council members press chief on why police didn’t do more during ICE surge
(Star Tribune, March 4)
Police Chief Brian O’Hara said police officers can’t stop federal agents from enforcing federal law unless they witness something egregious

See the latest Northfield.org posts in the archive.