Trump administration stopped sharing evidence in Good and Pretti killings, Minnesota officials say

State officials in Minnesota have alleged that the Trump administration abruptly ceased providing evidence to local investigators probing the deaths of two civilians, Renee Good and Alex Pretti, at the hands of federal officers in 2022. The claim, outlined in a series of court filings submitted last week, suggests a breakdown in inter‑governmental cooperation that could hamper efforts to determine whether the killings constituted unlawful use of force or were justified under existing protocols. The filings, which were not accompanied by any public comment from the White House, have reignited a contentious debate over federal accountability and the transparency of investigations involving law‑enforcement agencies.Renee Good, a 34‑year‑old mother of two, and Alex Pretti, a 29‑year‑old construction worker, were shot during separate encounters with officers from the Federal Protective Service (FPS) near the Minneapolis‑St..

Paul airport in March and May of 2022 respectively. Both incidents were initially classified as “justifiable shootings” by the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General (OIG), a finding that was later challenged by the families of the deceased, civil‑rights groups and local prosecutors. The Minnesota Attorney General’s Office, which has been conducting an independent review, requested access to dash‑cam footage, body‑camera recordings, incident reports and forensic analyses that were held by the federal agency.According to the court documents, the Minnesota Department of Public Safety received a limited set of documents in the months following the incidents, but the flow of additional material halted in early 2023..

“The federal government’s decision to discontinue the sharing of critical evidence undermines the state’s ability to perform a thorough and impartial investigation,” the filings state. The documents allege that the administration’s refusal to comply with standard inter‑agency protocols was not based on any formal legal objection, but rather on an internal directive that has not been disclosed to state officials. The filings further contend that the cessation of evidence sharing occurred despite multiple requests made through formal channels, including letters from the Attorney General’s office and subpoenas issued by a state grand jury.Legal experts note that while the federal government is not obligated to provide all investigative materials to state authorities, there is a longstanding precedent for cooperation in cases where state prosecutors are pursuing potential criminal liability against federal agents..

“The tension here reflects a broader struggle over jurisdiction and the balance of power between state and federal law‑enforcement entities,” said Professor Linda Martinez, a constitutional law scholar at the University of Minnesota. “If the administration is indeed withholding evidence without a legitimate justification, it could raise serious constitutional concerns, particularly regarding the Due Process Clause and the principle of equal protection under the law.”The families of Good and Pretti have expressed frustration and disappointment with what they describe as a systematic effort to conceal information that could illuminate the circumstances of the shootings. In a joint statement released on Tuesday, the families urged both federal and state officials to “honor the memory of Renee and Alex by ensuring that every piece of evidence is made available for a full and transparent inquiry.” They also called on Congress to consider legislative measures that would compel federal agencies to share relevant evidence with state investigators in cases involving potential criminal conduct.Federal officials, when approached for comment, reiterated that the Department of Homeland Security remains committed to “upholding the highest standards of accountability and transparency.” A spokesperson for the DHS Office of the Inspector General, however, declined to address the specifics of the Minnesota filings, citing ongoing litigation..

The White House’s press office issued a brief statement indicating that the administration “continues to respect the rule of law and the proper functioning of inter‑governmental investigative processes.” The statement stopped short of acknowledging any change in policy regarding evidence sharing.The dispute has drawn the attention of congressional oversight committees, with several members of the Senate Judiciary Committee requesting a briefing on the status of the investigations. Chairman Senator James Whitfield (R‑Iowa) emphasized the need for “clear guidelines that ensure cooperation without compromising national security interests.” In contrast, Representative Maya Patel (D‑California), a member of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, warned that “the lack of transparency threatens public confidence in both federal and state law‑enforcement agencies and may erode the very foundations of accountability that our democratic system depends upon.”In the meantime, the state’s grand jury continues its deliberations, with a deadline to issue a report set for early next year. Should the grand jury find sufficient evidence to recommend criminal charges, the case could proceed to a federal district court, where the question of jurisdiction and the admissibility of withheld evidence would become central issues..

Legal analysts suggest that the outcome may hinge on whether a court orders the federal government to produce the contested materials, a scenario that could set a precedent for future investigations involving federal officers.The Good and Pretti cases also intersect with a broader national conversation about the oversight of federal law‑enforcement agencies, which have faced heightened scrutiny since the death of George Floyd in 2020. Advocacy groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the NAACP have called for an independent federal commission to review the use of force policies across agencies like the FPS, the U.S. Marshals Service and the Bureau of Prisons..

These groups argue that a centralized oversight mechanism would mitigate the risk of “information silos” and ensure that state investigators are not left in the dark during critical inquiries.As the legal battle unfolds, the families, state officials and civil‑rights advocates remain united in their demand for a comprehensive accounting of what transpired on the days that Renee Good and Alex Pretti lost their lives. The resolution of the evidence‑sharing dispute may not only determine the trajectory of these specific investigations but also shape the parameters of federal‑state collaboration in the realm of law‑enforcement accountability for years to come..