What publicly available forensic or body-camera evidence are investigators collecting beyond bystander videos in the Pretti shooting?

1. What authorities say they are collecting and preserving

Hennepin County prosecutors and the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension moved quickly to demand preservation of evidence and to coordinate a state-level use‑of‑force investigation, filings that explicitly seek to prevent alteration or destruction of material gathered by federal authorities at the scene ^{[1] [2]}. Local officials set up an evidence portal to collect citizen-submitted material for investigators, indicating the county is aggregating both public videos and other submissions for forensic review ^[5]. A federal judge granted a temporary restraining order at the county’s request requiring the preservation of all evidence related to the shooting — a judicial step aimed at locking down physical and electronic evidence gathered by DHS and its agents ^[2].

2. What federal agencies have publicly shared

The Department of Homeland Security has released a photo of a firearm the agency says belonged to Pretti and has described the presence of ammunition and magazines; that image is the clearest piece of non‑bystander visual evidence publicly attributable to federal investigators so far ^[3]. DHS officials and Border Patrol spokespeople have also issued narrative accounts claiming agents attempted to disarm Pretti and that an agent fired in self‑defense — claims that are explicitly at odds with multiple witness videos, according to news organizations that reviewed footage ^{[6] [3]}.

3. What state investigators and reporters say they lack public access to

Multiple outlets report that state investigators were initially denied access to the federal-secured crime scene even after obtaining a search warrant, and that denial is a central reason the county and BCA sought judicial assistance to preserve federal-held evidence ^{[4] [2]}. News reporting so far does not identify any publicly released agent body‑worn camera footage, vehicle dashcam files, or federallaboratory forensic reports — and the public record in the cited coverage stops short of showing that such recordings have been turned over or released ^{[2] [4]}.

4. Forensic work that is publicly known or being pursued

Coverage documents legal steps to ensure the preservation of evidence that would typically underpin forensic work — ballistics, autopsy results, gun‑forensics and chain‑of‑custody documentation — but specific forensic reports have not been published as of the cited stories ^[2]. The press accounts and court filings make clear prosecutors expect to evaluate items taken by federal officers at the scene, which would include the firearm DHS displayed, any shell casings, medical/autopsy findings and forensic ballistics comparisons, though none of these forensic outputs have been released publicly in the material reviewed ^{[2] [3]}.

5. Conflicting narratives and the evidentiary gap

Videotapes shot by bystanders are the only on‑the‑ground moving images widely available to the public and those clips have been used by multiple news organizations to challenge the federal narrative that Pretti brandished a gun ^{[6] [7]}. The core evidentiary gap feeding controversy is the absence from public view of federal agent body‑worn camera or in-vehicle footage and any completed forensic reports; that absence has driven state prosecutors to legally compel preservation and, implicitly, to seek access to these materials for independent review ^{[2] [4]}. The DHS photo of a gun is the agency’s primary piece of non‑bystander evidence made public so far, but journalists and officials emphasize that photographs and competing narratives will need corroboration from forensics and chain‑of‑custody records to resolve discrepancies ^{[3] [6]}.