Has law enforcement publicly disclosed whether they seized footage from witnesses’ phones in the Renée Good investigation?
Executive summary
Law enforcement has not publicly documented a formal seizure of witnesses’ phones in the Renée Good case; instead, multiple news outlets obtained witness and agent-held cellphone footage independently and state prosecutors have asked the public to submit any relevant videos while alleging the FBI’s federal takeover has limited local access to evidence [1] [2] [3] [4]. Reporting shows media possession of videos and public appeals for footage, but no explicit public record or authoritative statement saying investigators seized witnesses’ phones has been produced in the sources provided [5] [6].
1. What the public footage landscape looks like
Within days of the shooting, journalists and independent outlets published at least five videos shot from multiple phones, including a clip widely verified as taken from the ICE agent’s phone; major outlets such as NBC, ABC and the CBC reported that they or other outlets had obtained these cellphone videos and that they show overlapping angles of the incident [1] [3] [2]. Index and other analysts used that publicly circulating footage to produce photogrammetry and 3D reconstructions, which further confirms that multiple citizen-shot videos were available in the public sphere and used by researchers and reporters [7].
2. What federal and state officials have said about evidence control
Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty and Minnesota officials have publicly expressed concern that the FBI’s decision to take the lead on the probe has limited local access to key pieces of evidence — including the agent’s gun and the vehicle — and she has asked members of the public to send any video directly to her office, indicating state prosecutors lacked unrestricted access to evidence at that moment [4] [3] [6]. Reporting also documents that the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension said it was effectively cut out after a promised joint investigation became a federal-only inquiry, which state officials say constrained their ability to gather and possibly seize local witness devices [8] [4].
3. No public confirmation of witness-phone seizures in the reporting
None of the sources reviewed include an explicit public disclosure from law enforcement stating that investigators seized witnesses’ phones; coverage instead details media acquisition of videos, the identification and verification of an agent-held phone clip, public submissions solicited by the county attorney, and disputes over which agency controls physical evidence [1] [2] [3] [6]. News articles describe footage "obtained by" outlets and "posted to social media," but do not quote an agency saying it confiscated by warrant or otherwise took possession of witness phones [1] [5] [9].
4. Where gaps and ambiguities remain, and why they matter
The absence of a public admission that phones were seized does not prove no such actions occurred — it only reflects what has been disclosed to date; the federal takeover and the fact that some physical items (the gun, the vehicle) were reported as held by federal authorities underscore how limited transparency can complicate local accountability [6] [8]. Given the politicized context — resignations by federal prosecutors and public criticism from Minnesota officials — both the provenance of videotaped evidence and the chain of custody are central to how the shooting is legally and publicly interpreted, yet the reporting available does not fill those evidentiary-chain details [8] [10].
5. Competing narratives about who controls the footage
Federal officials and DHS have leaned on the agent’s video to support their account of events, while local prosecutors and advocacy voices have warned that federal control over the investigation limits state oversight and access to all evidence; media dissemination of videos has therefore become the de facto mechanism by which the public and local officials are seeing and analyzing footage in lieu of a fully transparent multi-jurisdictional evidence release [5] [4] [6].
6. Bottom line for accountability and public record
Based on the reporting assembled here, law enforcement has publicly disclosed that multiple cellphone videos exist and that some outlets obtained them, but there is no public, sourced statement in these reports that investigators officially seized witnesses’ phones — instead, officials have described limited access to evidence after the FBI assumed control and have solicited public submissions of footage to the county attorney’s office [1] [2] [3] [6]. For definitive confirmation about seizures or warrants, public records from the FBI, DHS, Hennepin County or court filings would be necessary, and those specific disclosures are not present in the sources provided.