Minnesota says Trump administration halted evidence sharing in Renee Good and Alex Pretti killings

Minnesota authorities say President Donald Trump’s administration has stopped transferring evidence needed for independent investigations into the fatal shootings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti by federal officers during immigration enforcement operations in Minneapolis. Recent court filings described by the Associated Press on October 23, 2026, indicate that the federal government began providing materials in July but later suspended cooperation indefinitely. State prosecutors have renewed their request for judicial intervention, arguing that they cannot fully examine the deaths without access to key recordings, firearms and other physical evidence.

The two deaths occurred earlier in 2026 and generated nationwide demonstrations over federal immigration enforcement. Good, a 37-year-old mother of three, was shot by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer on January 7, while Pretti, a 37-year-old intensive care nurse, was killed by a federal officer later that month. Neither case has resulted in criminal charges against the officers involved.

The dispute now centres on whether federal agencies must provide evidence requested by Minnesota investigators. The Justice Department argues that disclosure is subject to federal regulations and administrative discretion, while state officials maintain that the withheld material is necessary for credible independent investigations.

Why did Minnesota sue the Trump administration over the shootings?

Minnesota authorities filed suit in March seeking access to evidence held by federal agencies. They argue that the state has a legitimate interest in independently investigating deaths involving federal officers operating within its jurisdiction.

Federal officials have questioned the state’s authority to conduct criminal investigations of federal personnel acting in their official capacities. Minnesota disputes that position and argues that the law does not automatically prevent state prosecutors from examining potentially unlawful conduct.

The litigation therefore involves two related questions: whether the state may pursue its own investigation and whether federal agencies must provide the evidence requested. The resolution may influence the practical ability of local authorities to investigate similar incidents.

The existence of a state investigation does not establish that the officers committed crimes. Its purpose is to determine the relevant facts and assess whether any offences may have occurred.

What evidence did the federal government initially provide?

State prosecutors said federal authorities began cooperating in July by transferring materials including body-camera footage and hard drives containing recorded statements. Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty initially expected that the remaining evidence would also be supplied.

However, court filings indicate that the transfer stopped shortly afterward. Moriarty said the U.S. Attorney’s Office informed her on September 10 that sharing had been placed on indefinite hold because of unspecified difficulties involving Washington.

The timing matters because Minnesota officials believed cooperation had begun after months of disagreement. The subsequent suspension left investigators without items they consider essential to reconstructing the shootings.

The Justice Department has not accepted the state’s characterisation that the withheld evidence must be produced under the circumstances presented. That disagreement is now before the court.

What evidence remains unavailable in Renee Good’s case?

Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension Superintendent Drew Evans said federal authorities still held clothing belonging to Good, the phone of the officer who shot her and recorded interviews that state investigators had not been able to examine.

Those items could contain information relevant to the circumstances immediately before and after the shooting. They may also help investigators compare witness accounts with physical and recorded evidence.

Good was shot while driving away from a Minneapolis protest. Video analysed by news organisations shows federal officers approaching her vehicle and an officer firing as the SUV moved forward.

Federal officials maintained that the officer acted in self-defence. That account remains disputed, and the absence of complete access to evidence is one reason the state continues seeking independent review.

What material is Minnesota seeking in Alex Pretti’s killing?

State investigators also say they have not received a recorded statement from an officer involved in Pretti’s death. They are seeking the officers’ firearms, phones, bullets, cartridge casings and a weapon taken from Pretti before he was shot.

Pretti was a nurse whose killing during an immigration enforcement operation generated substantial public controversy. Witness recordings and the federal government’s initial descriptions of the confrontation prompted questions about the use of force.

Access to physical evidence may help investigators determine the sequence of shots and the positions of those involved. Recorded interviews could also clarify what individual officers said they saw and why they acted.

The state is not asking the court to determine criminal guilt solely from the missing material. It is seeking evidence that may be necessary to conduct that evaluation through an independent investigation.

Why does the Justice Department say it can withhold evidence?

Federal lawyers cited regulations governing the release of agency information in response to requests involving legal proceedings. These rules, commonly known as Touhy regulations, establish procedures for obtaining official records and testimony from federal personnel.

The Justice Department argues that it has discretion to decline the state’s requests under the circumstances involved. Its lawyers also noted that there was no active court case when Minnesota initially sought certain information.

State prosecutors challenge that interpretation, arguing that the department has not identified a sufficient legal basis for obstructing their investigations. They maintain that the requested evidence is directly relevant to the deaths.

The disagreement is a procedural and jurisdictional dispute rather than a completed judicial determination that either side has acted unlawfully. The court must decide what disclosure obligations apply.

Why are the Good and Pretti shootings politically significant?

The deaths occurred during a major federal immigration enforcement operation in Minneapolis and generated demonstrations across the United States. They also intensified debate over the use of deadly force by federal officers and the degree of independent oversight available when such incidents occur.

Supporters of strong immigration enforcement argue that officers must be able to protect themselves during dangerous operations. Critics contend that federal agencies should not have exclusive control over investigations involving their own personnel.

The evidence dispute adds another dimension because the public may have difficulty evaluating conflicting accounts without complete investigative findings. Transparency and legal accountability are therefore central to the controversy.

However, the failure to release particular evidence does not independently establish that the shootings were criminal. That question requires examination of the available facts and applicable law.

What are the key takeaways from Minnesota’s evidence-sharing dispute?

• Minnesota says federal authorities stopped sharing evidence in investigations of the deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti.
• The federal government had begun transferring material in July after months of disagreement.
• State officials say the evidence-sharing process was suspended indefinitely in September.
• Missing material includes officers’ phones, firearms, physical evidence and recorded interviews.
• The Justice Department argues that disclosure is subject to federal regulations and its discretion.
• Minnesota prosecutors have asked a judge to compel access to the requested evidence.
• No criminal charges have been filed against the officers involved in either shooting.

What happens next in the Minnesota federal evidence dispute?

The court must determine whether federal agencies are legally required to produce the requested materials and whether Minnesota’s investigation can proceed with access to them. A decision compelling disclosure could materially change the state’s ability to reconstruct the shootings.

The broader legal issue concerns oversight of federal law-enforcement conduct within individual states. For now, the established development is that evidence sharing was suspended and Minnesota is pursuing a judicial order to resume it.