Share and Follow
WASHINGTON (AP) — On Tuesday, Minnesota authorities initiated legal action against the Trump administration, seeking access to critical evidence for their independent inquiry into three shootings involving federal officers, which include the deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti.
The lawsuit alleges that the federal government failed to honor its commitment to cooperate with state-led investigations following an increased federal law enforcement presence in Minneapolis. State officials are requesting a judicial mandate to enforce compliance from the Trump administration.
“We stand ready to pursue the transparency and accountability that the federal government is clearly trying to evade,” stated Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty during a press briefing.
This legal move intensifies the ongoing conflict between Minnesota’s leadership and the Trump administration regarding the investigations of these high-profile shootings by federal agents, which have led to widespread public protests. While the Trump administration maintains that Minnesota lacks the jurisdiction to investigate these incidents, state officials argue that independent investigations are necessary due to a lack of trust in federal self-assessment.
“It is imperative that an investigation occurs whenever a federal or state agent is involved in the loss of life within our community,” Moriarty emphasized.
The administration sent thousands of officers to the Minneapolis and St. Paul area for the immigration crackdown as part of President Donald Trump’s national deportation campaign. The Department of Homeland Security considered its largest immigration enforcement operation ever a success but it was staunchly criticized by Minnesota’s leaders who raised questions over officers’ conduct.
There continues to be fallout from Operation Metro Surge in the form of a Homeland Security shutdown, as Democrats in Congress hold up funding in an effort to secure restraints on Trump’s immigration agenda.
An email seeking comment was sent to Justice Department. A DHS spokesperson said in an email Tuesday that all shootings are reviewed by an appropriate law enforcement agency, followed by an independent review within the agency.
The Justice Department in January said it was opening a federal civil rights investigation into Pretti’s killing but has said a similar federal probe was not warranted in the killing of Good. The decision in Good’s case marked a sharp departure from past administrations, which moved quickly to investigate shootings of civilians by law enforcement officials for potential civil rights offenses.
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche has said that the department’s Civil Rights Division does not investigate every law enforcement shooting and that there have to be circumstances and facts that “warrant an investigation.”
DHS said Tuesday that Customs and Border Patrol is conducting its own internal investigation of the Pretti case. On Good, DHS said the matter remains under investigation but that footage shows Good impeded law enforcement operations and weaponized her vehicle, leading the officer to act in self-defense.
Minnesota’s lawsuit also demands access to evidence in a third case — that of Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis, who was shot and wounded in his right thigh by a federal agent in January.
Federal officials initially accused Sosa-Celis and another man of beating an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer with a broom handle and a snow shovel. But federal prosecutors later dropped all charges against the men, and authorities opened a criminal investigation into whether two immigration officers lied under oath about the shooting.
Both officers are on administrative leave as ICE and DOJ conduct a joint review, DHS said Tuesday, adding in a statement that ICE is committed to transparency and accountability.
Minnesota’s lawsuit said the federal government is not permitted to “withhold investigative evidence for the purpose of shielding law enforcement officers from scrutiny where a State is investigating serious potential violations of its criminal laws, targeting its citizens, within its borders.”
Moriarty said Tuesday that the federal government “has adopted a policy of categorically withholding evidence,” calling the practice unprecedented and alarming. She said the lawsuit followed formal demands for evidence after the federal government blocked Minnesota investigators from accessing evidence related to the shootings.
Such cases by states against the federal government are highly unusual, said Rachel Moran, law professor at the University of St. Thomas in Minneapolis.
That is because local agencies don’t often try to investigate potential crimes by federal officers, and also because the federal government rarely refuses to cooperate. The opposite, where state officials might try to obstruct federal agents, used to be more common during the civil rights era, Moran said.
“The state should have a chance at success because, what their basic claim is, is that they have a right to review evidence regarding a possible crime,” Moran said. “They have not only a right, but an obligation to investigate whether officers have committed crimes in their jurisdiction.”
Either outcome of the lawsuit could have significant implications for federal and state power. If a federal judge grants the state’s request, Moran said, that provides legal support for state and local officials to investigate federal officers. If the federal government is allowed to withhold evidence, it could discourage federal and state cooperation, she said.
___
Fingerhut reported from Des Moines, Iowa. AP reporter Sarah Raza in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, contributed.