LOUDOUN COUNTY, Va. — A dispute over how the Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office interacts with federal immigration authorities is headed into the open Tuesday, with Sheriff Mike Chapman accusing Board of Supervisors Chair Phyllis Randall of relying on false information about his office’s practices.
In a letter sent to the Board ahead of its Sept. 15 business meeting, Chapman defended the Sheriff’s Office relationship with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and said Loudoun deputies do not conduct immigration enforcement in the field.
“LCSO has been consistent about our relationship with ICE,” Chapman said in his letter. “We do not conduct field enforcement with or on behalf of ICE and any claim or implication to the contrary is false.”
The issue is on Tuesday’s Board agenda through a Board Member Initiative from Randall. Chapman said he was invited to appear before supervisors to answer questions about the department’s relationship with ICE, but he declined.
The disagreement matters beyond another political fight between Loudoun’s elected officials. At its center is a basic question for residents: What happens when a Loudoun deputy encounters someone who may be wanted by ICE?
Chapman offered a detailed answer.
According to his letter, deputies routinely check law-enforcement databases during traffic stops and other encounters. Those checks can include the FBI’s National Crime Information Center and the Virginia Criminal Information Network.
ICE can place information in NCIC and request notification when law enforcement encounters a person of interest. Chapman acknowledged that LCSO provides those notifications.
But he drew a sharp distinction between notifying ICE and holding someone for ICE.
“To be clear: this is notice, not enforcement, and it only occurs during or after an encounter. LCSO does not delay or detain anyone for whom ICE has an immigration detainer.”
Chapman also said deputies do not ask people about their immigration status during traffic stops or other routine encounters.
According to figures Chapman included in the letter, a Freedom of Information Act request covering the 16 months ending July 21, 2026, found 13 encounters in which LCSO provided notice to ICE. Chapman said none resulted in someone being taken into custody for an immigration violation.
He contrasted those 13 notifications with 233,613 calls for service and other contacts during the same period, including 49,834 traffic stops.
There is a separate policy for people already being held at the Loudoun County Adult Detention Center.
Chapman said LCSO participates in a 287(g) Warrant Service Officer program involving people already in jail on criminal charges unrelated to immigration and who are scheduled for release. Under that program, according to Chapman, the Sheriff’s Office can hold a person for up to 48 hours if ICE cannot immediately take custody.
That distinction — between what deputies do on Loudoun’s roads and in its communities and what happens inside the county jail — is likely to be central to the Board’s discussion.
Chapman also made clear that this is now a political dispute.
He criticized Randall for sharing an email announcing the agenda item with other supervisors, county staff, reporters and what he described as an “anti-law enforcement political group based in Alexandria,” while not sending it to him or the Sheriff’s Office.
“Using your platform on their behalf is disrespectful to the Office of the Sheriff, and disappointing.”
Chapman did not identify the organization by name in the letter.
The sheriff also tied the dispute to public confidence in law enforcement, an especially important issue in a county that has changed dramatically as Loudoun has grown.
“The LCSO values our strong relationship with the communities we serve, and we are determined to protect that trust through our policies and practices. In doing so, I will continue to call out any effort to use false information or obfuscation to undermine this relationship and put public safety at risk,” he added.
Chapman said he will not attend the Board meeting to defend the policy in person.
“I will decline the invitation to appear before the BOS and be part of a political spectacle. My door is always open if you or any of your colleagues want to meet about this or any other matter and how we can work together to keep Loudoun safe.”
That leaves supervisors to take up the issue Tuesday without the sheriff at the table.
For Loudoun residents, the Board discussion now has two separate questions to sort through: whether the Sheriff’s Office’s description of its practices matches what deputies are doing in the field, and whether those practices represent the relationship with ICE that county residents and their elected officials want.
Chapman’s letter provides his answer to the first question. The debate at the Board of Supervisors will likely focus heavily on the second.
