What evidence has been preserved and released so far in the Alex Pretti case?
Executive summary
A federal judge dissolved an emergency order that had required investigators to preserve evidence in the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti, concluding the record did not justify continued court supervision even while acknowledging apparent mishandling of a firearm image and inflammatory public statements by officials [1] [2]. Federal authorities say they are preserving evidence as part of a DOJ civil‑rights probe led by the FBI, while Minnesota prosecutors and the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) have complained about restricted access and continue legal and administrative efforts to secure materials [1] [3] [2].
1. The preservation order that was imposed and then lifted
After state officials sued to block federal agents from destroying or altering evidence collected at the scene, U.S. District Judge Eric Tostrud initially issued an emergency preservation order, but on Feb. 2 he revoked that order, reasoning that federal agencies are unlikely to destroy evidence and are already legally obligated to preserve it for potential civil litigation [1] [2] [4]. The lifting of the order means the judge will not actively supervise evidence custody for now, though he left open future judicial remedies and emphasized the existing obligations on law enforcement [1] [5].
2. What material has been collected or cited in reporting so far
Reporting and filings referenced at least one firearm that federal agents reportedly removed from Pretti’s waistband, photographs of that firearm circulated in the immediate aftermath, and investigators’ possession of other scene materials and forensic evidence; federal agencies have told the court they are preserving such materials while the FBI assists with forensics [6] [1] [3]. The Department of Justice has opened a federal civil‑rights investigation into the killing, and DHS announced the FBI would lead components of the probe, signaling federal custody of key physical and forensic evidence [3].
3. What has been released publicly and what remains withheld
Publicly released or widely circulated items have been limited mainly to photographs that circulated in media and social posts—most prominently images of a firearm allegedly taken from Pretti—which became focal points in state filings alleging mishandling and raising questions about chain of custody [6] [1]. Beyond those images, there is no record in the reviewed reporting that body‑worn camera footage, forensic reports, or complete inventories of items collected have been made public; Minnesota officials say federal investigators initially restricted local access to evidence, and talks over sharing remain ongoing [2] [7].
4. Disputes over handling, chain of custody and transparency
Minnesota and Hennepin County attorneys argued federal agents denied state personnel access and that early circulation of firearm photos suggested possible mishandling; Judge Tostrud acknowledged apparent errors and troubling public statements from administration officials but found the weight of evidence did not prove a present risk of destruction or alteration sufficient to continue the preservation order [1] [4]. Local prosecutors and the BCA have pressed for court‑ordered access because prior incidents involving federal probes in Minnesota left them wary; federal lawyers counter that agencies are preserving evidence and will comply with obligations while the DOJ investigation proceeds [2] [6].
5. What to expect next and limits of current reporting
The DOJ civil‑rights probe led by the FBI creates a path for federal evidence retention and potential criminal review, and the state’s lawsuit and negotiations with federal agencies keep the question of evidence access alive; the judge’s decision does not require immediate sharing but preserves the possibility of future judicial intervention over turnover or preservation violations [3] [5]. Reporting to date documents photographs and conflicting accounts of custody and access, but does not catalog a complete list of preserved items, disclose whether body camera or full forensic files have been turned over to state investigators, or provide an inventory verified by both sides—those remain gaps in the public record [2] [7] [6].