DOJ Halts Evidence Sharing in Minnesota ICE Shooting Probes

On September 10, Minnesota U.S. Attorney Daniel Rosen told Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty that his office would stop sharing evidence “indefinitely,” citing “challenges with D.C.” The message ended a short-lived arrangement between federal and state investigators, leaving open questions about who controls evidence in the deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti.

A Cooperation That Didn’t Last

The breakdown followed a brief period of collaboration. Beginning in late June, Minnesota’s U.S. attorney’s office and the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, the state’s lead investigative agency, negotiated an evidence-sharing agreement over roughly three weeks. Court records filed Tuesday say federal law enforcement turned over Good’s vehicle, the gun used to shoot her, body-worn camera footage, officer statements and other material. Minnesota agents, in turn, shared evidence they’d collected with federal agents.

The following month, Moriarty publicly thanked federal prosecutors at a press conference. She believed then that her office had received all the evidence in both cases, or would soon. But within days, state filings say, federal officials stopped cooperating without explanation. Moriarty’s team later discovered that key evidence had never arrived.

What State Investigators Say They’re Missing

In court filings Tuesday, Minnesota investigators said the Justice Department still hasn’t produced a statement from one of the officers who shot Pretti. It’s central evidence as the Hennepin County attorney weighs the killing. Drew Evans, superintendent of the BCA, said in a sworn statement that state investigators also can’t access the cellphone of the agent who fatally shot Good, Good’s clothing, the firearms used to shoot Pretti, the gun Pretti possessed, or other physical evidence from the scene, including projectiles and shell casings.

Minnesota authorities are also seeking evidence tied to the non-fatal shooting of Venezuelan immigrant Julio Sosa-Celis. ICE officer Christian Castro faces state and federal charges related to that shooting and the investigation. The state is pursuing access to the evidence in federal court in Washington, D.C. CNN said it had contacted the Justice Department and the Minnesota U.S. attorney’s office for comment.

A Pause With No Stated Reason

Moriarty said in a sworn statement that she repeatedly asked Rosen to resume sharing evidence. He told her several times that his office was “pausing” cooperation but was “optimistic” more information could be shared “soon.” Then came September 10, and the word “indefinitely.” Moriarty said she “was left with the understanding” that no further evidence would go to state and local investigators “unless and until there was a change in policy on that sharing coming out of Washington D.C.”

She also contrasted the pause with ordinary practice. “Indeed, in all other matters including complex homicide cases, mass shootings, drug and gun cases, and many other types of cases, collaboration and information sharing with federal officials continues as normal,” she wrote. “The pause on information sharing is unique to these matters.”

The filings don’t explain why Washington changed course, and the Justice Department hasn’t publicly explained its decision. That silence matters. The public record can’t yet answer what policy is driving the pause, who set it, or what legal basis supports withholding physical evidence from the state’s chief investigative agency. Federal officers acting in the line of duty, and the federal government’s interest in how those cases are handled, raise real jurisdictional questions. The state’s authority to investigate killings within its borders does, too.

Why This Matters:

Federalism depends on institutions that can work together, or at least explain themselves when they can’t. Here, a county prosecutor says she was told one thing, then another, without a stated rationale beyond “challenges with D.C.” Whatever the merits of the federal position, an unexplained, open-ended refusal to share evidence invites distrust in both agencies and makes it harder to reach conclusions the public can accept. Federal officers deserve a fair process, and the rule of law cuts both ways: it protects agents from rushed judgments and families from stonewalling. The dispute is now headed to a federal courtroom in Washington, where a judge, not an anonymous policy decision, may have to decide who gets access to what. How that ruling lands could set precedent for every future case where state and federal authorities collide over use-of-force investigations.