Which body‑worn camera, surveillance, or other footage from the Renee Good incident remains unreleased and who controls access to it?
Executive summary
A ~47‑second cellphone video filmed and circulated that purports to show the ICE agent’s perspective was publicly released by Alpha News and widely shared by officials and outlets [1] [2] [3]. What has not been publicly released, according to reporting, includes the agency-controlled body‑worn camera recordings that ICE policy says officers should activate during enforcement, other departmental video (dashcams or vehicle cameras), full investigative footage held by federal investigators, and any uncollected or withheld surveillance/bystander clips not yet turned over to authorities [4] [5] [3].
1. What’s already been released: the agent’s cellphone clip and bystander angles
Reporters and outlets published a short video recorded on the ICE agent’s cellphone that shows moments before the shooting and was obtained by Alpha News; that clip has been described and analyzed across CBC, BBC, The Washington Post and others [6] [2] [3]. Multiple local bystander videos also circulated immediately after the incident and were used to construct side‑by‑side sequences by local TV outlets [7] [8].
2. Body‑worn camera footage: expected but not public
ICE policy directs officers to activate body‑worn cameras at the start of enforcement actions and to retain footage for serious incidents such as deaths, yet reporting makes clear those bodycams either were not worn, were not activated, or their footage has not been released publicly in this case; outlets highlight that the widely circulated “agent perspective” clip is a handheld cellphone video, not a bodycam recording [4] [5] [9]. Journalists and analysts have repeatedly corrected claims that the recently published clip is a bodycam file, stressing it is a phone recording from the agent’s hand [9].
3. Other official recordings—dashcams, vehicle cameras, and investigatory holdings
Coverage notes that additional official footage could exist—dashcams from ICE or other responding vehicles and any camera systems from public safety units on scene—but none of those materials have been publicly produced as of the reporting, and federal investigators have taken custody of evidence as part of the ongoing probe [4] [2] [3]. The BBC and OPB report the FBI is investigating the shooting, which typically places some evidentiary materials under federal control during an active inquiry [2] [4].
4. Bystander and private surveillance footage: a patchwork under solicitation
Local prosecutors and investigators have asked the public to submit any recordings and evidence connected to the shooting and planned to post a submission link, signaling that other private surveillance or phone videos exist or may yet emerge, but those clips remain in varying possession and largely unreleased pending collection and review [4]. News outlets show a number of citizen-shot recordings have been made public, but reporting also emphasizes a broader effort to gather more footage from neighbors and motorists [7] [8].
5. Who controls access: agencies, investigators, and local prosecutors
Control of unreleased footage is split: ICE/DHS control agency recordings and the agent’s devices until they are turned over or released; the FBI, as the federal investigative body on scene, has custody or oversight of evidentiary materials during its probe; and local prosecutors and the county attorney’s office coordinate review, solicit public submissions, and may petition for or receive copies for charging decisions—each of these actors therefore controls different pools of unreleased video [4] [2] [3]. The Department of Homeland Security publicly authenticated the cellphone clip but has not released other agency video, underscoring DHS/ICE authority over internal footage [10].
6. Political context and competing agendas shaping access and release
The patchwork release so far—an agency phone clip circulated via partisan outlets and promoted by national political figures—has intensified scrutiny about selective disclosure, with municipal leaders and critics calling for full transparency while DHS and pro‑agency voices stress self‑defense; reporting frames the struggle over footage as both evidentiary and political, because which tapes are released and by whom affects public narrative and prosecutorial timing [2] [10] [9].
7. What remains unknown and limits of current reporting
Public reporting identifies which categories of footage are missing from the public record but does not provide a comprehensive inventory of every recording in agency or investigative custody, nor a definitive timeline for release; outlets consistently note the FBI investigation, ICE policy expectations, and calls for public submissions but do not list specific unreleased files held by named custodians beyond general agency and federal control [4] [2] [3]. Absent official disclosure or court filings enumerating all evidence, the precise universe of unreleased clips and their custodians can only be stated in these broad terms based on available reporting [4] [3].