What new evidence or official findings have been released by the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension about the Renee Good shooting?
Executive summary
The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) has not released new evidence or independent findings about the fatal Jan. 7 shooting of Renee Good; instead the agency publicly announced it is not conducting a use-of-force investigation because it was denied access to evidence by federal authorities and has “reluctantly withdrawn” from the probe, while federal officials maintain they are leading the investigation [1] [2]. The Justice Department has separately said there is currently no basis for a federal criminal civil‑rights probe, a decision that has prompted resignations and sharp criticism from state and local leaders who say exclusion of the BCA raises fairness and transparency concerns [3] [4] [5].
1. BCA’s public position: no independent use-of-force investigation at this time
The BCA’s superintendent, Drew Evans, issued a statement saying the agency is not conducting a use‑of‑force investigation into the ICE‑involved shooting that killed Renee Good and that, without complete access to evidence, witnesses and collected information the BCA “cannot meet the investigative standards” required under Minnesota law, prompting the agency to withdraw from the investigation for now [1]. The statement explicitly tied the withdrawal to lack of access to materials needed to perform a thorough and independent inquiry rather than a substantive finding about the shooting itself [1].
2. Who controls the evidence: FBI restrictions and interagency dispute
Public reporting and contemporaneous summaries indicate the FBI revoked or limited the BCA’s access to evidence and became the lead federal investigator, a reversal of an earlier joint‑investigation arrangement and the principal reason the state agency said it could not continue its role [2] [5]. Local officials and leaders including Minneapolis’ mayor and Minnesota’s attorney general publicly pressed the FBI to include state investigators and warned that federal control of evidence could impede a transparent and impartial inquiry [6] [5].
3. No new BCA evidence released to the public
There is no indication in the BCA statement or the cited reporting that the agency has produced or released new forensic findings, body‑worn camera footage, autopsy results, or witness‑interview summaries to the public; the BCA’s announcement centered on its withdrawal due to lack of access, not on any completed investigative products [1]. Reporting that mentions video or newly circulated footage refers to materials obtained and published by other outlets or the FBI-led probe, not to BCA‑released evidence [7].
4. Federal stance and its implications: DOJ decision and competing narratives
The Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, via Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, stated there is currently no basis for a criminal civil‑rights investigation into the killing, a position that departs from prior practice in some high‑profile police shootings and which critics say narrows avenues for state‑level review; this DOJ posture has fueled departures of some federal prosecutors and heightened political controversy in Minnesota [3] [4]. Federal officials and DHS have defended the ICE agent’s actions as self‑defense and said Good attempted to use her vehicle as a weapon, a version contested by eyewitnesses and many local leaders who are calling for fuller access and independent review [8] [2] [5].
5. What the BCA says it could do next and the gap in published facts
The BCA has indicated it “remains open to conducting a full investigation” if the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the FBI resume a joint investigation or agree to share evidence, underscoring that the agency’s current public stance reflects an evidence‑access problem rather than a judgment on culpability [9]. Based on the sources reviewed, there are no newly disclosed BCA investigative findings — only the announcement of withdrawal, description of restricted access to materials, and an unresolved offer to re‑engage if evidence access is restored [1] [2] [9].