Minnesota Says Trump Administration Again Withheld Evidence in ICE Shooting Probes
Minnesota officials say federal prosecutors paused evidence sharing in investigations of three shootings by immigration agents; the Justice Department says withholding is lawful.
Minnesota officials say the Trump administration again stopped sharing evidence with state investigators examining three shootings by federal immigration agents, reversing cooperation that Hennepin County officials announced in July. The allegation appears in new filings in Minnesota’s federal lawsuit against the Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security and was reported October 22 by CBS Minnesota, KEYC and The Associated Press.
The dispute concerns the January shootings of Renee Good, Alex Pretti and Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis during Operation Metro Surge, the administration’s large immigration-enforcement deployment in the Twin Cities. Good, 37, was killed in her car by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent on January 7. Sosa-Celis was wounded by a federal immigration agent on January 14, and Pretti was killed by federal immigration agents on January 24. Minnesota authorities are conducting their own investigations into the agents’ use of force.
Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty said on July 13 that state investigators had received hard drives containing officer statements and body-camera footage, as well as Good’s sport utility vehicle. But Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension Superintendent Drew Evans said in a court declaration that the U.S. Attorney’s Office for Minnesota stopped providing more material after that announcement, despite a written evidence-sharing agreement reached in June.
According to the state’s filing, the U.S. attorney told Moriarty on September 10 that sharing would be paused indefinitely because of challenges with officials in Washington and gave no date for its resumption. Evans said federal authorities still hold the cellphone of the agent who killed Good, Good’s clothing and recordings of witness interviews. In the Pretti inquiry, he said Minnesota has not received the officers’ firearms and phones, projectiles and cartridge casings, Pretti’s firearm or a recorded statement from one of the officers.
Those assertions are Minnesota’s account in contested litigation, not findings by the court. Moriarty accused the federal government of obstructing the state investigations. Evans said the evidence is needed for complete reviews and that discussions about information sharing are continuing. State officials also say they have not received federal grand-jury material tied to the Sosa-Celis shooting.
The Justice Department disputes Minnesota’s legal position. In a reply filed this week, federal lawyers asked the judge to dismiss the lawsuit or transfer it from Washington to Minnesota. They accused the state of choosing an improper forum and argued that federal rules governing outside evidence requests did not require disclosure when Minnesota first sought the records. The government also contends that decisions to withhold the material are discretionary and cannot be reviewed under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Federal lawyers further argue that Minnesota has not been prevented from filing charges, pointing to Hennepin County’s May case against ICE agent Christian Castro in the Sosa-Celis shooting. They cited Moriarty’s July statement as evidence that the state had received the material it needed. Minnesota responds that important items remain in federal custody, including the gun used in that shooting and grand-jury records. The competing filings leave the scope and timing of any future evidence transfer unresolved.
The renewed breakdown is significant because it could affect how quickly state authorities can decide whether the January shootings were lawful. It also revives a federal-state conflict that Minnesota brought to court in March, before the June agreement temporarily opened access to some evidence. The judge has not yet resolved the state’s request for an order compelling disclosure or the Justice Department’s request to dismiss or transfer the case.