What legal steps have Minnesota officials taken to preserve evidence and investigate federal-agent-involved shootings?
Executive summary
Minnesota officials have taken immediate legal and procedural steps to preserve evidence and press for state-led scrutiny after two federal-agent-involved shootings, including filing a federal lawsuit and securing a temporary restraining order to bar destruction of evidence, while publicly documenting that federal authorities blocked state investigators from accessing scenes [1] [2] [3]. At the same time the state has mobilized its investigative apparatus — the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension — sought warrants and public submissions of tip material, and publicly warned that federal obstruction will not be accepted, even as federal agencies assert primary jurisdiction and the FBI’s role remains uncertain [4] [1] [5].
1. Lawsuits and court orders to stop evidence destruction
Minnesota state and Hennepin County prosecutors moved quickly to use federal court to protect potential evidence, filing a lawsuit that resulted in a temporary restraining order aimed explicitly at preventing the Department of Homeland Security and its components from destroying materials related to the shooting, a legal maneuver state officials said was necessary because they believed DHS would otherwise limit access to the scene and evidence [2] [6].
2. Public assertions and declarations documenting obstruction
State leaders — including the superintendent of the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) — formally declared that federal agents had blocked BCA attempts to investigate on-scene, and the BCA filed a declaration in federal court stating that in more than 20 years it had not previously experienced federal authorities denying access when there was concurrent jurisdiction, a claim used as the factual underpinning for the state’s legal action [5] [4].
3. Warrants sought and denied access despite court papers
BCA and local law enforcement obtained signed search warrants intended to let state investigators secure and process the scene, but officials say Department of Homeland Security personnel still would not permit physical entry, prompting the state to escalate to litigation and public criticism while noting the practical problems created when scenes become inaccessible or are overtaken by crowds before re-examination can occur [4] [3].
4. Parallel investigatory posture: state portals, prosecutors and the BCA mobilize
Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty and state officials announced they were committed to an objective state-level inquiry, encouraging the public to submit videos and tips through an online portal and coordinating legal and investigative pathways to assemble evidence independent of federal cooperation, signaling an intention to build a record sufficient for local charging decisions or public reporting [1] [7].
5. Federal responses, jurisdictional limits and competing narratives
Federal officials have maintained that the incidents fall within federal jurisdiction and initially controlled the scene; DHS and Border Patrol spokespeople described their own investigative aims — such as reconstructing shots and weapons placement — while some federal offices or agents have pulled back from joint work, leaving the FBI’s exact collaborative role unclear and prompting state officials to assert that full cooperation was not forthcoming [5] [3] [8]. Observers also note the constitutional backdrop: even if state charges were pursued, the supremacy clause gives the federal government mechanisms to shift prosecutions to federal court, an institutional reality Minnesota officials are confronting as they press for access and accountability [2].
6. Political and operational escalations tied to legal strategy
The legal steps cannot be divorced from the political fight: state leaders publicly criticized the federal deployment, activated the National Guard to assist public safety, and framed the court filings as a needed check against perceived federal overreach, while federal officials disputed some witness characterizations and emphasized law-enforcement safety concerns — a dynamic that has both legal and evidentiary consequences for who controls material and how transparently it is processed [6] [5] [3].