What other footage and forensic evidence have been released about the Renee Good shooting?
Executive summary
Multiple new videos have circulated: a 47‑second cellphone clip filmed by the ICE agent who fired, several bystander cellphone recordings and a trove of public submissions that Minnesota prosecutors are soliciting; forensic commentary has focused on the audio, the driver’s hand positions and whether the vehicle contacted or “impeded” agents, while official body‑worn camera footage has not been released to the public and federal control of evidence has complicated local review [1] [2] [3] [4]. Journalistic and forensic observers disagree about what the available footage proves — DHS says the agent’s video corroborates its claim that the vehicle was weaponized, while multiple news analyses say the recordings undercut elements of the federal narrative [5] [6] [7].
1. The agent’s 47‑second cellphone clip: what it shows and who published it
A 47‑second video that appears to have been recorded by ICE agent Jonathan Ross and obtained by Alpha News shows Renée Good in the driver’s seat speaking directly to an approaching officer, includes audio of the exchange in the crucial seconds before the shooting, and has been authenticated publicly by DHS spokespeople — a clip that became the centerpiece of debate after it circulated online [1] [2] [5].
2. Bystander and other cellphone footage: corroboration and contradictions
Multiple bystander cellphone videos and other neighborhood clips have also surfaced and been reviewed by reporters; CNN’s frame‑by‑frame analysis found that several vehicles — including one driven by Ross — were able to go around Good’s vehicle before the encounter escalated, a detail that challenges the DHS claim that her car was blocking officers [7] [1].
3. Body‑worn camera footage: noted as existing but not public
ICE policy requires agents to use body‑worn cameras during enforcement and serious incidents, and several outlets reported that agents at the scene were equipped with such cameras; however, those bodycam recordings have not been released to the public, and reporting notes uncertainty about whether the agent who fired had an active body camera at the moment of the shooting [4] [3].
4. Forensic commentary: hands, gestures and audio analyzed by specialists
Clinical and forensic psychologists publicly reviewed the agent’s clip and highlighted specific physical cues — notably the position and motion of Good’s hands and steering — and interpreted the audio exchange to argue differing inferences about intent and perceived threat; at least one expert argued the movement was consistent with attempting to leave, while others described the actions as potentially threatening, producing sharply divergent conclusions [8] [9] [10].
5. Conflicting narratives tied to the footage: DHS versus local leaders and reporters
DHS officials have pointed to the agent’s video as corroboration that Good “weaponized her vehicle” and impeded officers, a characterization repeated early by administration officials, whereas local leaders, eyewitnesses and several news organizations say the recordings undermine those claims and call attention to discrepancies — including whether there was a physical contact with the agent or whether lanes were blocked — leaving the sequence of events disputed [5] [11] [12].
6. Investigative access and chain‑of‑custody disputes affecting forensic review
The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension initially worked jointly with the FBI, but reporting shows the FBI later assumed primary control and state investigators reported losing access to evidence and scene materials; that shift has raised questions among state and local officials about impartiality and about who will be able to perform independent forensic analysis of the full set of footage and physical evidence [4] [11].
7. Public solicitation of additional footage and the evidentiary patchwork
The county prosecutor has publicly asked citizens to submit any recordings and evidence related to the shooting — an acknowledgment that the current public record consists of multiple partial video angles and analyses rather than a single, complete evidentiary source — and officials have warned that public submissions may or may not change the legal outcome [13] [3].
8. What remains unreleased or unresolved
Beyond the agent’s cellphone clip and scattered bystander recordings, key pieces have not been made public or remain contested: ICE bodycam footage has not been released for public review, definitive forensic reports about whether the vehicle made contact with the officer have not been published, and federal control of evidence has limited state access, leaving critical forensic questions open in publicly available reporting [4] [12] [11].