Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara recently announced that city officers are expected to intervene if they witness what he calls “unlawful” or “excessive” force by any law enforcement personnel, including federal agents.
The directive comes at a moment of heightened federal immigration activity in the city, with recent ICE operations drawing particular attention near Karmel Mall, a prominent center of Minneapolis’ Somali community.
O’Hara framed the policy as part of the city’s continued effort to avoid past failures, pointing to Minneapolis’ response following the death of George Floyd in 2020.
He warned that officers who hesitate when witnessing misconduct—whether from local officers or federal personnel—could face termination.
“Our officers have a duty to intervene when they see misconduct… not just within our department but from any law enforcement agency present,” he said.
The chief’s remarks come as Minneapolis continues implementing reforms tied to a federal investigation that found longstanding problems with use-of-force oversight.
City leaders have been under pressure to demonstrate stronger accountability systems, and O’Hara’s directive appears to build on those efforts, even as its application to federal personnel introduces new legal questions.
Federal officials and legal analysts warn that the directive may push Minneapolis officers into potential violations of federal law, since interfering with or obstructing ICE during lawful enforcement actions can carry legal penalties.
The concern underscores the conflict between Minneapolis’ sanctuary policies and federal immigration authority.
Minneapolis’ sanctuary city policies add another layer of complexity. For years, the city has limited local involvement in civil immigration enforcement to encourage community cooperation with police.
Under current rules, local officers generally do not act on federal immigration matters unless required by law.
Federal authorities argue these limits sometimes obstruct enforcement, and in September, the Justice Department filed a lawsuit challenging Minnesota’s and Minneapolis’ sanctuary ordinances, saying they hinder federal operations.
O’Hara’s directive places local officers between competing expectations. Department policy instructs officers not to interfere with federal activity, while the chief’s order requires intervention if agents are perceived to use excessive force.
The overlap has raised concerns that officers could be placed in situations where complying with one directive violates another, creating uncertainty about how the policy will function during active ICE operations.
Residents and community advocates have expressed mixed reactions. In neighborhoods where ICE presence has increased, some have raised concerns about tactics such as masked personnel and late-night detentions.
Videos posted online showing arrests and surveillance activity have fueled discussions among local groups about when—and whether—city officers should step in, according to LifeZette.
“We’ll need to see this in action to understand its impact,” said advocate Miri Villerius.
Legal experts note that any physical interference with federal officers could trigger immediate review or possible prosecution.
Although no Minneapolis officers have been disciplined under the directive so far, analysts say the first real-world test of the policy will likely determine how city leadership and federal authorities handle future conflicts.
The policy highlights ongoing efforts to balance accountability, resident protection, and adherence to federal law.
As Minneapolis continues to navigate its sanctuary framework and federal scrutiny, the directive underscores the challenge of policing in cities caught between local reform demands and federal enforcement priorities.
How the city applies O’Hara’s order—and whether it withstands legal scrutiny—may influence how other sanctuary jurisdictions define the role of local officers during federal immigration actions.
WATCH:
