What evidence has the FBI released publicly in the Renee Good investigation, and when?
Executive summary
The publicly reported record shows the FBI took control of the Renee Good death investigation in early January and has not released key forensic materials — notably any ICE body‑worn camera footage — while investigators and prosecutors have cited a “widely shared video” in public statements [1] [2] [3]. Local officials, Good’s civil legal team and national commentators dispute whether the FBI has made all relevant evidence available to the public or to state investigators, and several federal resignations and public criticisms have followed [4] [5] [6].
1. FBI assumed control of evidence and limited local access — Jan. 7–8
Reporting establishes that the FBI moved to lead the criminal investigation almost immediately after the Jan. 7 shooting and that, by Jan. 8, the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) said the FBI had revoked its access to scene evidence, interviews and case materials — a change the BCA said made a thorough state investigation “extremely difficult, if not impossible” [2] [4] [1].
2. What the public actually has seen — “widely shared video,” not federal releases
News outlets and federal officials have referenced a “widely shared video” of the encounter that has circulated publicly; Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche cited that publicly available footage when saying the department saw “no basis” for a civil‑rights investigation of the ICE agent [3] [7]. That video has been the centerpiece of public discussion, but reporting does not attribute its public availability to a formal FBI evidence release [3] [2].
3. Body‑worn camera footage and forensic materials: not publicly released, per reporting
Major outlets reported that ICE agents at the scene were equipped with body‑worn cameras but that any bodycam footage had not been released to the public; some outlets noted initial uncertainty about whether the firing officer was wearing a camera and that DHS had not answered queries about body‑camera use [2]. Multiple local and national reports say the FBI is holding evidence, and no source in the reporting documents an FBI release of scene forensics, ballistic reports, or unedited bodycam files [4] [2].
4. FBI’s public statements and timing: selective disclosures and silence
Federal officials have publicly announced the FBI-led status of the probe and, through the DOJ, defended the lack of a civil‑rights criminal inquiry into the agent — comments that referenced publicly viewed video as the basis for that stance — but those statements have not been accompanied by publication of the full investigative file or primary evidence by the FBI, according to press reports [3] [7] [4].
5. Reactions, resignations and competing narratives over evidence control
State and local leaders, including the BCA and Hennepin County officials, have warned that losing access to evidence prevents the BCA from meeting its investigative standards; critics have accused the FBI and DOJ of obstructing a transparent inquiry, while supporters say federal control follows procedure for federal officers — a dispute that led to the resignation of multiple federal prosecutors who objected to the DOJ’s approach [1] [4] [5]. Independent civil attorneys for the Good family have launched a parallel civil probe and said they will release findings on a rolling basis to fill perceived transparency gaps [8].
6. What remains unknown and why the public record is incomplete
The public record compiled by reporting shows clear assertions about what the FBI has done (taken custody of evidence, led the probe) and about what has not been released (no public bodycam or forensic evidence release), but it does not document any formal FBI public release of scene evidence, investigative interviews, ballistic or autopsy reports, or a full forensic file with timestamps and metadata — reporting simply does not show those items having been published by the FBI [2] [4] [3]. Where reporting cites internal FBI or DOJ decisions — such as opening an inquiry into Good’s activities or focusing investigations on her partner — those are described as sourced to people familiar with internal deliberations rather than to public evidence releases [3] [9].