[ad_1]
Listen to this article
Estimated 5 minutes
The audio version of this article is generated by AI-based technology. Mispronunciations can occur. We are working with our partners to continually review and improve the results.
Officials in Minnesota sued the Trump administration on Tuesday for access to evidence they say they need to independently investigate three shootings in the state by federal officers, including the killings of Renée Good and Alex Pretti.
The lawsuit claims the federal government reneged on its promise to co-operate with state investigations after a surge in federal law enforcement in Minneapolis earlier this year. State officials are seeking a court order demanding the Trump administration comply.
“We are prepared to fight for transparency and accountability that the federal government is desperate to avoid,” Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty told reporters.
The lawsuit marks an escalation in the clash between Minnesota leaders and the Trump administration over the investigations into the high-profile shootings by federal officers that sparked public outcry and protests.
The Trump administration has suggested that Minnesota officials don’t have jurisdiction to investigate, but state officials insist they need to conduct their own probes because they don’t trust the federal government to investigate itself.
“There has to be an investigation any time a federal agent or a state agent takes the life of a person in our community,” Moriarty said.
Minnesota investigators said they were unable to access any evidence in the fatal shooting of a woman in Minneapolis after the FBI took over the case, and Gov. Tim Walz criticized the Trump administration for freezing them out: “It feels very, very difficult that we will get a fair outcome.”
Ongoing fallout in partial shutdown
The administration sent thousands of officers to the Minneapolis and St. Paul area for the immigration crackdown known as Operation Metro Surge, part of U.S. President Donald Trump’s national deportation campaign.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) declared 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 the operation in the form of a Homeland Security shutdown, as Democrats in Congress hold up funding in an effort to restrain Trump’s immigration agenda.
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 U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) 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.
U.S. government officials say ICE agents fatally shot Alex Pretti at a protest in Minneapolis because he had a gun on his person and, according to U.S. President Donald Trump’s homeland security adviser Stephen Miller, was a ‘would-be assassin.’ Andrew Chang breaks down several video angles of the shooting, moment by moment, to understand how accurate the government’s initial account is.
Images provided by The Canadian Press, Reuters and Getty Images
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 offences.
Deputy U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche has said the department’s Civil Rights Division does not investigate every law enforcement shooting and there have to be circumstances and facts that “warrant an investigation.”
The DHS said Tuesday that U.S. Customs and Border Patrol is conducting its own internal investigation of the Pretti case. On Good, the DHS said the matter remains under investigation but footage shows Good impeded law-enforcement operations and weaponized her vehicle, leading the officer to act in self-defence.
A U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer fatally shot a woman in Minneapolis amid the Trump administration’s latest immigration crackdown, and now outrage is flaring over colliding narratives of what actually happened. Andrew Chang breaks down video evidence moment by moment and compares it against the rules governing the use of force and self-defence.
Images provided by The Canadian Press, Reuters and Getty Images
3rd shooting in lawsuit
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 (ICE) 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 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.
‘State should have a chance at success’: law prof
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 co-operate.
“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 co-operation, she said.
[ad_2]
Source link