What Happened on January 24
The Basic Facts
January 24, 2026. Minneapolis. During ongoing immigration enforcement protests, federal agents (reported as Border Patrol/DHS personnel) fatally shot Alex Pretti, 37, a VA nurse. DHS claims Pretti was armed and resisted disarmament. Bystander video is being cited as conflicting with this narrative. On January 25, a federal judge issued an evidence-preservation order after state/local authorities alleged obstruction.
Context: Second Shooting in 17 Days
This is the second fatal shooting by federal immigration agents in Minneapolis since January 7, when ICE agents shot Renee Good during an enforcement operation. Both shootings involve disputed self-defense claims. This page does not allege a "pattern of illegality" but notes the escalating political and civil-liability risk, and increasing pressure for independent review.
Why This Case Is Different
Unlike the Renee Good case (vehicle threat), this involves a claimed firearm and alleged disarmament sequence. The key legal question: Was the handgun secured before the fatal shots? Bystander video interpretation differs from official account.
- Alex Pretti, 37, fatally shot on January 24, 2026
- Federal agents (Border Patrol/DHS) were the shooters
- Incident occurred during protest activity related to enforcement surge
- Pretti was a VA nurse
- Multiple bystander videos exist
- Evidence-preservation order issued January 25
- State/local authorities alleged evidence-handling problems
- Whether Pretti was armed at time of shooting
- Whether any handgun was secured before fatal shots
- Exact sequence of events leading to shooting
- Whether Pretti "resisted disarmament" as DHS claims
- Whether agents gave verbal warnings
- Agent positions and distances at time of shots
- Whether threat was imminent when shots fired
Critical evidence yet to be released or analyzed:
⏳ Full bodycam footage (if any)
⏳ Autopsy report: wounds, trajectory
⏳ Ballistics: matching, distance
⏳ Chain of custody for any firearm
⏳ Enhanced video analysis
⏳ Witness statements under oath
Jan 7, 2026
First shooting: Renee Good
ICE agent shoots woman during enforcement op
Jan 7–24
Protests escalate in Minneapolis
Ongoing demonstrations against enforcement surge
Jan 24, 2026
Alex Pretti fatally shot
Federal agents kill 37-year-old during protest
Jan 24 (hours later)
DHS: "Self-defense"
Claims Pretti was armed, resisted disarmament
Jan 24–25
Video conflicts emerge
Bystander footage cited as contradicting official narrative
Jan 25, 2026
Judge issues preservation order
TRO after state alleges evidence problems
The Competing Narratives
🏛️ DHS Position
- Pretti was armed with a handgun
- Pretti resisted disarmament
- Agents acted in self-defense
- Deadly force was necessary
📹 Video/Local Position
- Video may show different sequence
- Questions about whether gun was secured
- Allegation of evidence-handling issues
- Demand for independent investigation
The Video Conflict
🎥
Official Narrative vs Bystander Video
Multiple news outlets report that bystander video is being cited as conflicting with DHS's official account. The exact nature of the conflict is still being analyzed.
DHS Claims
- Pretti was armed
- Pretti resisted disarmament
- Shots were "defensive"
- Imminent threat to agents
Video Questions
- Was handgun secured before shots?
- What was the actual sequence?
- Agent positions at time of firing?
- Was threat still active?
Why Video Timing Matters Legally
Under Graham v. Connor, deadly force is evaluated at the "moment" of the shooting. If video shows the threat had ended (e.g., weapon secured) before shots were fired, the constitutional calculus changes dramatically. This is why the evidence-preservation order is so significant.
How Courts Treat Video Evidence
Scott v. Harris (2007)
"When opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts."
When video clearly shows what happened, courts give it controlling weight over officer testimony.
Tolan v. Cotton (2014)
Even with video, courts must draw reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party on summary judgment.
Ambiguous video doesn't automatically favor either side—both interpretations may go to a jury.
Key Question: Is the bystander video clear enough to definitively contradict the DHS narrative? Or is it ambiguous enough to create a genuine factual dispute requiring trial?
The Evidence-Preservation Order
⚖️
Federal Judge Issues TRO (Jan 25, 2026)
A Trump-appointed federal judge ordered DHS to preserve all evidence related to the Pretti shooting after Minnesota state authorities alleged obstruction or evidence-handling problems. This is a significant procedural development that accelerates the litigation posture.
Why This Matters
An evidence-preservation order (TRO) is a concrete legal event. It signals: (1) a judge found sufficient concern to intervene, (2) the credibility of federal evidence handling is being questioned, and (3) spoliation arguments may now be available if evidence is lost or altered.
What a Preservation Order Typically Covers
- All bodycam and dashcam footage
- Cell phone videos and photos from agents
- Radio communications and dispatch records
- Physical evidence (weapons, clothing, shell casings)
- Agent reports and statements
- Medical/autopsy records
- Witness interview recordings
- Chain of custody documentation
Spoliation: What Happens If Evidence Is Lost
Spoliation occurs when a party destroys, alters, or fails to preserve evidence. Consequences can include:
- Adverse inference: Jury may be told to assume lost evidence was unfavorable to the destroying party
- Sanctions: Monetary penalties, fee-shifting
- Case-dispositive sanctions: In extreme cases, summary judgment or default
The preservation order puts DHS on notice. Any evidence loss after this order carries severe consequences.
Who Controls the Investigation?
A key friction point: federal vs. state investigative authority.
Federal Position
- DHS/CBP internal affairs
- FBI potential involvement
- DOJ oversight
- Federal court jurisdiction
State/Local Position
- Minnesota BCA wants access
- Local prosecutor jurisdiction
- State court potential claims
- Independent review demand
The preservation order suggests state authorities have successfully obtained some federal court leverage, at least on evidence access.
Legal Standards
The same constitutional framework from the Renee Good analysis applies, but the factual posture differs. This case involves a claimed firearm threat rather than a vehicle threat.
1
Constitutional Standard (Graham v. Connor)
The Test: Objective Reasonableness
"The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving."
Pretti Application: Did agents reasonably perceive an imminent deadly threat at the moment they fired? If the gun was already secured, the "split-second" defense weakens significantly.
Key Factors (Graham)
Courts consider: (1) severity of crime, (2) immediate threat to officers/others, (3) whether suspect resisting or fleeing.
Central dispute here: Was there an "immediate threat" at the moment of shooting, or had it passed?
2
Armed Suspect Case Law
General Principle
An armed suspect who refuses to surrender weapon or makes threatening movements may generally be engaged with deadly force.
But: once weapon is secured/removed, the threat calculus changes entirely.
The "Moment" Problem
Deadly force is evaluated at the moment it's used—not before, not after.
KEY ISSUE: If video shows the handgun was secured BEFORE fatal shots, the "armed suspect" framing collapses.
3
Federal Policy Requirements
DHS Use of Force Policy
Deadly force authorized only when officer has reasonable belief of imminent danger of death or serious physical injury.
Key: "Imminent" means the threat exists at the moment of shooting.
De-escalation Requirements
Agents are required to use de-escalation techniques when feasible before resorting to deadly force.
Question: Was there an opportunity to de-escalate that wasn't taken?
Key Legal Questions
- Timing: Was the handgun secured before the fatal shots?
- Imminence: Was there an active threat at the moment of firing?
- Video clarity: Does footage definitively resolve the dispute?
- Evidence integrity: Will preservation order reveal chain-of-custody issues?
- Investigation control: Who gets to make the final determination?
Outcome Pathways
Three Lanes, Accelerated by Court Order
The evidence-preservation order accelerates all pathways. Criminal, civil, and administrative investigations now have a judicial anchor point. Discovery will be more robust. Evidence-handling will be scrutinized.
Criminal
Federal (18 USC § 242)
- Requires willfulness—intent to deprive rights
- DOJ Civil Rights Division decides
- Video evidence could be pivotal
State (MN Homicide)
- Local prosecutor may pursue
- Removal to federal court likely
- Supremacy Clause defenses available
Civil Lawsuit
FTCA (vs United States)
- Wrongful death claim
- Admin claim required first
- Attorney fees capped (20%/25%)
Bivens (vs Agent)
- Largely blocked after Egbert (2022)
- Immigration context disfavored
- But clear video could change analysis
Preservation Order Advantage
- Robust discovery now protected
- Spoliation arguments available if issues arise
- Federal court already involved
Administrative
Internal Investigation
- CBP/DHS Office of Professional Responsibility
- DHS Office of Inspector General
- Use of force review board
Possible Outcomes
- Policy violation finding
- Discipline (reprimand to termination)
- Policy/training changes
- Referral to DOJ if warranted
Good vs. Pretti: Comparative Analysis
| Factor | Renee Good (Jan 7) | Alex Pretti (Jan 24) |
|---|---|---|
| Setting | Traffic stop / enforcement op | Protest context |
| Claimed threat | Vehicle | Firearm |
| Video clarity | Moderate (shows movement) | TBD (conflict alleged) |
| Court involvement | None yet | Preservation order issued |
| Evidence control dispute | No | Yes (state alleges obstruction) |
| Key legal question | Officer position during shots | Threat status at time of shots |
Update Log
Jan 25, 2026
Initial publication following evidence-preservation order