What legal avenues exist for Hennepin County to obtain federal evidence (the car, gun, or files) if federal agencies decline to cooperate?
Executive summary
Hennepin County has already pursued a judicial route — filing suit with the Minnesota Attorney General and the BCA to block federal agencies from destroying evidence — and obtained at least a temporary federal court order preventing DHS from “destroying or altering” evidence [1] [2]. County leaders say additional options are being explored but acknowledge that a state-level investigation will be extremely difficult without federal cooperation [3].
1. Lawsuits to preserve and recover evidence: the path already taken
When federal agencies declined to turn over or preserve evidence, Hennepin County’s clear first legal avenue was civil litigation seeking injunctive relief; the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office and the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension sued DHS, ICE and CBP to stop destruction or alteration of material and to force preservation, and a federal judge issued an order blocking DHS from destroying or altering evidence in the Minneapolis shooting matter [1] [2]. That remedy — asking a federal court to enjoin the federal agency — is immediately aimed at securing the physical items (the car, the gun, files) and establishes an enforceable judicial command when voluntary cooperation fails [2] [1].
2. State investigative partners and parallel investigations
Hennepin County has publicly emphasized working with state investigative bodies and local partners as part of its strategy: the county attorney’s office is coordinating with the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension and the Attorney General’s Office on legal filings and investigative posture, reflecting a strategy of creating parallel state processes when federal cooperation is limited [1] [2]. County officials and the county attorney have signaled they are “exploring all options” and “speaking to our local partners on paths forward,” underlining reliance on state authorities and multi-agency legal tactics when federal agencies decline to coordinate [3].
3. Criminal charging authority and prosecutorial leverage
Hennepin County officials assert the county prosecutor has authority to bring charges against federal agents for crimes that violate state law, and the county’s public statements and media interviews reflect readiness to pursue criminal accountability at the state level should the evidence be available [4]. That prosecutorial authority creates both legal incentive and practical leverage: the threat or initiation of state criminal proceedings can prompt courts to order preservation and production of evidence or to sanction noncompliance if evidence exists and is withheld — though county leaders concede doing so “would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, without cooperation from the federal government” [3].
4. Public evidence collection and community-sourced materials
Faced with limits on accessing federal holdings, Hennepin County has solicited evidence from the public through its Evidence Submission Portal and public outreach, asking citizens to submit video, documents and tips to support the state-level investigation [5] [6]. That avenue does not substitute for federal physical evidence but serves as a pragmatic parallel channel to build a case, preserve third-party recordings, and shore up gaps if federal agencies withhold materials [5] [6].
5. Institutional and legal constraints: what officials admit and what remains unclear
County leaders and reporting acknowledge real constraints: without federal cooperation, certain investigative tasks and access to federal property or agency-controlled items are “extremely difficult, if not impossible” — a candid admission from county officials that litigation and state tools have limits against federal authority and evidentiary control [3]. While the lawsuit succeeded in obtaining at least an order preventing destruction [2] [1], reporting does not provide a comprehensive list of all legal mechanisms Hennepin might or could pursue next — for example, it does not document the use of federal grand juries, specific subpoena battles, or negotiated joint-task-force agreements in this instance — and the public record cited here does not confirm those tactics were pursued.
6. Political context and competing agendas
The county’s legal moves sit amid fraught federal–local relations and political pressure: Hennepin’s actions—filing suit, invoking state investigatory partners, soliciting public evidence—signal both a legal strategy and a public-relations posture asserting local control and accountability when federal agencies decline to cooperate [1] [5]. Federal agencies’ refusal to work jointly, and the county’s litigation response, reflect not just forensic disputes but competing institutional and political interests that shape what legal tools are viable in practice [3] [2].