Minnesota investigators say federal authorities have stopped sharing evidence in the fatal shootings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, reopening a dispute over whether state officials can obtain the materials they need to independently investigate federal immigration officers.
The renewed disagreement follows a June 2026 evidence-sharing arrangement that initially appeared to end months of limited cooperation. Federal authorities subsequently transferred video recordings, digital files and physical evidence, but Minnesota officials say additional cooperation stopped shortly after a July announcement.
According to reporting by The Associated Press, state prosecutors are again asking a federal judge to compel the release of outstanding evidence. The Justice Department argues that decisions to disclose the requested information fall within federal agencies' discretion.
How an Evidence-Sharing Agreement Broke Down
The dispute stems from three shootings involving federal officers during an immigration enforcement operation in Minneapolis. An Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer fatally shot Good, 37, on January 7, 2026. Federal immigration officers fatally shot Pretti, also 37, on January 24. A third person, Julio Sosa-Celis, was wounded in a separate January 14 shooting.
Minnesota authorities filed a federal lawsuit on March 24 seeking access to evidence they said was necessary for independent state criminal investigations. The case was brought in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against federal agencies and officials.
After negotiations, state and federal representatives reached an evidence-sharing understanding on June 26, according to an October 13 sworn declaration by Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension Superintendent Drew Evans.
On July 13, Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty publicly announced that federal authorities had begun providing previously withheld materials. The transfers included hard drives containing digital evidence, body-camera recordings and Good's vehicle.
In its July announcement, the Hennepin County Attorney's Office also confirmed that the state had provided investigative materials to federal authorities, establishing a two-way exchange.
That apparent breakthrough proved incomplete. In October court filings, Minnesota officials said additional evidence transfers had stopped shortly after the July announcement.
Moriarty said Minnesota U.S. Attorney Daniel Rosen informed her on September 10 that evidence sharing would be paused indefinitely because of unspecified difficulties involving Washington, D.C.
The account appears in the state's October filings. It does not establish who made the decision to stop cooperation or whether a particular federal official directed it.
What Evidence Minnesota Says Is Still Missing
Although investigators received substantial evidence during the summer, Minnesota officials say important materials remain unavailable.
In Good's case, Evans identified her clothing, the cellphone of the ICE officer who shot her and recordings of investigative interviews among the outstanding items.
For Pretti's shooting, the declaration identifies additional materials that state investigators say they have not received, including:
- Cellphones belonging to the federal officers involved.
- Firearms used by the shooting officers.
- A firearm taken from Pretti before he was shot.
- Projectiles and cartridge casings.
- A recorded statement from one of the officers who shot Pretti.
Investigators say those materials are important to completing their independent examination of the shootings. Physical evidence, recorded statements and communications can help investigators evaluate competing accounts, establish sequences of events and assess whether additional investigative steps are necessary.
The existence of outstanding evidence does not, by itself, establish that federal officials destroyed material or unlawfully obstructed an investigation.
Neither fatal shooting had resulted in criminal charges as of the latest reporting reviewed on October 23, 2026. The evidence-access litigation is separate from any eventual decision about criminal liability.
Why the Justice Department Disputes the Requests
The disagreement centers on the authority of state investigators to obtain records and evidence controlled by federal agencies, as well as the procedures governing those requests.
In an October court response, Justice Department attorneys argued that federal agencies have discretion over whether to release the requested information. They relied on federal procedures commonly known as Touhy regulations, which govern how agencies respond to certain demands for official records or employee testimony.
Federal attorneys also argued that the relevant regulatory procedures were tied to formal legal proceedings and that no such proceeding was active when Minnesota submitted its requests.
Minnesota officials reject the federal government's position. In their October 13 court memorandum, they challenged the continued withholding of evidence and sought judicial relief.
The state maintains that its investigators need access to material held by federal authorities to determine independently what happened during the shootings.
The Justice Department's procedural argument and Minnesota's objections are competing legal positions, not findings that either side has conclusively prevailed.
The dispute also raises a broader institutional question: how federal and state law enforcement agencies should cooperate when a state investigates conduct involving federal officers. Resolving the current case requires applying the relevant legal rules to the specific requests and agency decisions at issue.
What Happens Next
The federal lawsuit remains the central mechanism through which Minnesota is seeking additional evidence.
U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan is overseeing the proceedings. The court must address the parties' arguments about federal disclosure authority, the state's requests and the relief available under the governing law.
A decision requiring further disclosure could allow Minnesota investigators to examine additional materials. A ruling favoring the federal government's position could leave some requests unresolved or require the state to pursue other lawful avenues.
Neither outcome would automatically determine whether the shootings were criminally justified. That question belongs to the underlying investigations and any subsequent prosecutorial or judicial proceedings.
Several matters remain unsettled: whether additional evidence will be transferred, why cooperation stopped after July, how the court will resolve the disclosure dispute and whether state investigators will ultimately receive the materials they consider necessary.
The central change is that an agreement once presented as a significant step toward investigative cooperation has not produced the continuing access Minnesota officials expected. Until the remaining evidence dispute is resolved, the state's investigations face questions about whether the available record is sufficiently complete.
0 Comments