Minnesota Officials Decry Loss of Access to Evidence in Fatal ICE Shooting as FBI Takes Sole Control
MINNEAPOLIS – Tensions are mounting in Minnesota after state investigators said they were abruptly cut off from evidence in the fatal shooting of a Minneapolis woman by a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer, with federal authorities now leading the probe alone.[1][2] The decision has prompted sharp criticism from state officials who say they can no longer carry out an independent, transparent investigation.
The shooting occurred Wednesday morning in south Minneapolis, where 37-year-old Renee Good, a U.S. citizen, was fatally shot by an ICE officer near East 34th Street and Portland Avenue.[1][2] Good was behind the wheel of her car at the time of the encounter. City leaders say she was acting as a legal observer of federal actions in the area and was not a target of any ICE-related arrest operation.[2]
Conflicting Narratives Over What Led to the Shooting
Federal officials, including the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), have defended the actions of the ICE officer, alleging that Good attempted to use her vehicle as a weapon.[1][2] DHS officials have said the officer opened fire when Good was “attempting to run over our law enforcement officers,” characterizing the incident as an “act of domestic terrorism” and describing her car as a “deadly weapon.”[1]
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has further asserted that the officer is an experienced agent who, in her view, “acted according to his training.”[1] The officer’s name has not been publicly released.[2]
Local officials, however, dispute the federal account. Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey said that video footage reviewed by city leaders does not support the claim that Good was driving toward officers or using her vehicle as a weapon.[1] “This was an agent recklessly using power that resulted in somebody dying — getting killed,” Frey said, calling the shooting unjustified based on information available to the city so far.[1]
Witness accounts and videos circulating in the community have also been cited by local leaders as contradicting the self-defense narrative advanced by federal officials, deepening public mistrust and fueling protests in Minneapolis.[1][2]
State Investigators Say Access to Evidence Was Cut Off
The initial response to the shooting involved both federal and state authorities. According to Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) Superintendent Drew Evans, the BCA was first assigned to investigate the ICE shooting in coordination with the FBI, following the standard process when a law enforcement officer uses deadly force in the state.[1][2][3]
Evans said that early on, the BCA understood it would conduct a joint investigation with the FBI, allowing state investigators access to the scene, evidence and witness interviews.[1][3] Later the same day, however, the FBI informed the BCA that the U.S. Attorney’s Office had “reversed course.”[1][2][3] The investigation would now be led solely by the FBI, and the BCA would no longer have access to “case materials, scene evidence or investigative interviews necessary to complete a thorough and independent investigation,” Evans said.[1][2][3]
In a formal statement, the BCA said this reversal left its investigators effectively sidelined.[3] “Without complete access to the evidence, witnesses and information collected, we cannot meet the investigative standards that Minnesota law and the public demands,” the agency stated, adding that it had “reluctantly withdrawn from the investigation.”[2][3]
The BCA emphasized that its Force Investigations Unit was created to foster “consistency, accountability and public confidence” in officer-involved shooting probes, all of which, the agency argued, rely on full cooperation among agencies and clear jurisdictional roles.[2][3]
FBI Now Solely in Charge as State Steps Back
With the BCA’s withdrawal, the FBI is now the lone investigative authority in the case.[1][2] As of publication, the FBI has not provided a detailed public explanation for the decision to block state access, and local media report that federal officials have yet to fully respond to questions about the shift.[2]
The BCA stated that it still expects “a thorough and complete investigation” from the FBI and that the full investigative file will ultimately be shared with appropriate prosecutors at both the state and federal levels.[2][3] The agency also signaled that it is prepared to rejoin the investigation if federal officials reconsider and restore a joint structure.[2][3]
Governor, Local Leaders Raise Concerns Over Transparency
Minnesota’s top elected officials have voiced concern over the federal posture. Governor and legislative leaders have underscored the need for transparency and independent review whenever law enforcement uses deadly force, especially in Minneapolis, where prior high-profile killings by officers have drawn international scrutiny.[1]
Mayor Frey publicly criticized both the shooting and the subsequent federal handling of the investigation, describing the loss of state access as a blow to public trust.[1] City officials have stressed that residents expect independent, locally accountable oversight when lethal force is used, regardless of whether the officers are federal or state.
The dispute comes against a backdrop of longstanding tensions between Minneapolis communities and law enforcement, exacerbated by previous cases in which video evidence played a decisive role in challenging official narratives. Advocates say the Good case underscores the ongoing debate over who controls evidence and how quickly it is shared with the public and local authorities.
Community Reaction and Calls for Independent Review
The shooting has sparked protests and vigils in Minneapolis, where demonstrators demand the release of all available video and audio recordings, the identification of the ICE officer involved, and the restoration of a joint investigation that includes Minnesota authorities.[1][2] Civil liberties groups and immigrant-rights organizations have joined local activists in calling for an independent review process that does not depend solely on federal agencies.
Advocates argue that Good’s reported role as a legal observer raises additional questions about the encounter and the federal characterization of her actions. Legal observers often monitor law enforcement activity during operations or demonstrations, and supporters say her presence should not have placed her in harm’s way.
Attorneys and community leaders are also pressing for clarity on what evidence was initially shared with the BCA and what restrictions were later imposed. They contend that limiting state access to key materials, such as body-camera footage, surveillance video and witness interviews, may impede accountability and hinder the ability of local prosecutors to make charging decisions.
Next Steps in the Investigation
With the FBI now solely responsible for the case file, pressure is building on federal authorities to demonstrate that their investigation will be comprehensive and unbiased. The BCA has stated that, at minimum, it expects to receive the full investigative record once the FBI’s work is complete, so that state and federal prosecutors can review potential charges under their respective laws.[2][3]
State officials and community advocates say they will continue pushing for renewed joint participation by Minnesota investigators and greater public disclosure of evidence as the case progresses. For now, the decision to exclude the BCA has left one of the state’s leading investigative agencies on the sidelines — and has intensified the debate over who controls critical evidence when a federal officer uses deadly force on Minnesota soil.[1][2][3]