What Happened in Minneapolis
The Basic Facts
January 7, 2026. South Minneapolis. During an ICE enforcement operation, an agent fired 3 shots through a vehicle's windshield as the SUV moved forward. Renee Good, 37, was killed. ICE claims self-defense. Minneapolis Mayor disputes. FBI and Minnesota BCA investigating.
Why This Case Matters
The video shows the agent firing as the vehicle moves. Whether shots were fired while in the path vs after the vehicle passed is legally decisive. Courts can analyze each shot separately.
- 3 shots fired (visible/audible on video)
- Shots went through front windshield
- Vehicle was moving forward when shots fired
- Close range engagement
- Fatal head wound
- ICE enforcement operation context
- Multiple video angles exist
- Whether vehicle struck the agent
- Agent's exact position at each shot
- Time gap between shots (continuous volley?)
- Whether agent could have moved clear
- Exact wound trajectory (awaiting autopsy)
- Whether warnings were given
- Vehicle speed and steering angle
These findings will shape the legal analysis once released:
⏳ Autopsy: entry/exit wounds, trajectory
⏳ Windshield analysis: impact angles
⏳ Distance calculations at each shot
⏳ Bullet recovery and matching
⏳ Vehicle damage and tire marks
Morning, Jan 7
ICE enforcement operation begins
~10:45 AM
Renee Good shot: 3 rounds through windshield
Vehicle moving forward and right
Hours later
Conflicting statements
ICE: self-defense. Mayor: disputes.
Jan 8
FBI, BCA investigating
Jan 23
Medical Examiner: Homicide ruling
Classification, not guilt determination
Jan 25
Judge orders evidence preservation
TRO issued re: Pretti shooting
The Competing Narratives
🏛️ Federal Position
- Agent acted in self-defense
- Vehicle posed imminent threat
- Deadly force was necessary
🏙️ Local Position
- Video contradicts self-defense
- Woman was not target
- Agent may not have been in path
Shot-by-Shot Analyzer
The Core Legal Question
Courts can analyze each shot separately. Shot #1 while in the vehicle's path may be justified. Shots #2 and #3 after the vehicle has passed face much harder scrutiny. Key case: Waterman v. Batton.
The "Room for Error" Myth
The test is objective reasonableness—not what this officer felt, but what a reasonable officer could perceive. It accounts for split-second decisions but isn't a blank check.
Configure Each Shot
Toggle inputs to see how the legal analysis changes
Shot 1
LOW RISK
Shot 2
MEDIUM RISK
Shot 3
HIGH RISK
Additional Factors
Legal Risk Assessment
Constitutional (4A)
Moderate Risk
Waterman v. Batton
Policy Violation
Elevated Risk
DOJ moving vehicle rule
Civil Exposure
Medium-High
QI analysis required
Analysis: With Shot 1 in-path/active but later shots alongside/behind with diminishing/ended threat, courts would likely analyze the volley in segments. Initial shot defensible under Graham; later shots face Waterman "subsequent shots" scrutiny.
Legal Standards: Constitution to Criminal
Click each layer to expand. Higher layers set the floor; lower layers add constraints.
1
Constitutional Floor (Fourth Amendment)
Graham v. Connor (1989)
"Reasonableness must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with 20/20 hindsight."
Baseline test: objective reasonableness under totality of circumstances.
Read Case →
Tennessee v. Garner (1985)
"Where the suspect poses no immediate threat... the harm from failing to apprehend does not justify deadly force."
Deadly force to stop flight requires significant threat of death or serious physical injury.
Read Case →
Barnes v. Felix (2025)
Courts must consider "totality of circumstances" including events leading up to shooting—no "chronological blinders."
Pre-shooting actions (stepping into path) are part of reasonableness analysis.
Read Case →
2
Vehicle-Specific Case Law
Waterman v. Batton (4th Cir. 2005)
Courts can split shooting into segments: "initial shots" while threat active vs "subsequent shots" after vehicle passed.
KEY CASE: Shot #1 in-path may be justified. Shots #2-3 after vehicle passed face separate analysis.
Read Case →
Plumhoff v. Rickard (2014)
Multiple shots can be reasonable when fleeing driver continues to pose grave danger.
Government counterargument: if vehicle remained dangerous to others, continued firing may be justified.
Read Case →
Scott v. Harris (2007)
Deadly force to end dangerous high-speed chase can be reasonable.
Minneapolis wasn't a high-speed chase—limits applicability.
Read Case →
3
Federal Policy (Often Stricter)
DOJ Use of Force Policy
"Deadly force may be used only when necessary... when officer has reasonable belief subject poses imminent danger of death or serious physical injury."
Key: "Firearms shall not be discharged solely to disable moving vehicles."
View Policy →
DHS Use of Force Policy
For vehicles: only when deadly force by means other than vehicle, OR vehicle poses imminent threat AND no reasonable alternative exists, including moving out of path.
View Policy →
ICE Firearms Directive
Deadly force only for imminent danger. Not authorized solely to prevent escape. Warning required when feasible.
Note: Policy violation ≠ constitutional violation. Officer can violate policy but satisfy 4A floor. But policy violations affect discipline and factfinder perception.
4
Criminal Standard (Highest Bar)
18 U.S.C. § 242 - Federal Civil Rights
Requires proof of willfulness—specific intent to deprive constitutional right.
Why federal charges are rare: "reasonable mistake" defeats willfulness. Beyond reasonable doubt standard.
View Statute →
Screws v. United States (1945)
"Willfully" means purpose to deprive of specific constitutional right—not just intentionally performing act.
Minnesota State Law
Minn. Stat. § 609.065: Justifiable taking of life requires necessity and reasonable belief of great bodily harm.
State charges possible but face Supremacy Clause and removal (28 USC § 1442).
View Statute →
Qualified Immunity: Why Civil Damages Are Hard
Even if constitutional violation occurred, officer avoids liability unless:
- Conduct violated a constitutional right, AND
- Right was "clearly established"—unlawfulness "beyond debate"
Vehicle shooting cases: QI often granted because fact patterns vary:
- Mullenix v. Luna (2015) - QI granted; need specificity
- Brosseau v. Haugen (2004) - QI granted; law not clearly established
Key Takeaways
- Shot sequencing matters: Courts can analyze each shot separately (Waterman)
- "In-path" vs "passed" is decisive: Later shots face harder scrutiny
- Policy stricter than Constitution: DOJ/DHS rules constrain more
- "Could move clear" is key: Policy violation likely if yes
- Criminal requires willfulness: Higher bar than civil
- QI blocks most civil damages
Outcome Pathways
Three Lanes, All Run in Parallel
Criminal: Rare, requires willfulness. Civil: Fee-capped, QI-blocked. Administrative: Internal discipline. Families typically see money through FTCA settlements.
🎮 Outcome Simulator
Adjust the inputs to see how different fact scenarios affect likely outcomes
Estimated Outcome Probabilities
Projected Settlement Range
$2.4M – $5.6M
Based on comparable federal vehicle shooting cases
Analysis Summary
Criminal charges remain unlikely (historically rare for federal agents). Moderate policy concerns. QI likely available given factual disputes and novel circumstances. Civil resolution expected.
Criminal
Federal (18 USC § 242)
- Requires willfulness
- DOJ Civil Rights Division decides
- Historically rare prosecutions
State (MN Homicide)
- Local prosecutor decides
- Agent can remove to federal court
- Supremacy Clause defenses available
Civil Lawsuit
FTCA (vs United States)
- Sue government, not agent
- Admin claim required first
- Attorney fees capped (20%/25%)
Bivens (vs Agent)
- Constitutional damages claim
- Largely blocked after Egbert (2022)
- Immigration context disfavored
Administrative
Internal Investigation
- ICE Office of Professional Responsibility
- DHS Office of Inspector General
- Shooting review board
Possible Outcomes
- Policy violation finding
- Discipline (reprimand to termination)
- Policy/training changes
Investigation Timeline: What Happens Next
NOW
Initial Investigations
FBI and Minnesota BCA gathering evidence
1-4 wks
Autopsy & Forensics
ME report, ballistics, trajectory
1-6 mo
Charging Decisions
DA and DOJ evaluate for charges
≤2 yrs
Civil Claims
FTCA deadline; wrongful death suit
2-5 yrs
Resolution
Settlement or trial
Money & Settlements
FTCA Settlement Calculator
See how fee caps affect what families receive
Attorney Fee
$1,000,000
20% statutory cap (28 USC § 2678)
Family Receives
$4,000,000
Before expenses, liens
Settlement Benchmarks (Comparable Cases)
| Case | Facts | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| Than Orn v. Tacoma | Shot during low-speed pursuit | $8,000,000 |
| Erik Salgado (CHP) | CHP shots into vehicle | $7,000,000 |
| Anastasio Hernandez Rojas | Border Patrol death | $1,000,000 |
Each case is unique. These are reference points, not predictions.
Why Federal Cases Pay Differently
| Factor | Local Police (§ 1983) | Federal (FTCA/Bivens) |
|---|---|---|
| Defendant | City/County | United States |
| Attorney Fees | Fee shifting; no cap | 20-25% cap |
| Punitive Damages | Available | Not available |
| Bivens Claim | § 1983 established | Largely foreclosed |
| Jury | Yes | Bench trial only |
Update Log
Jan 25, 2026
Added second shooting (Alex Pretti) breaking banner, ME homicide ruling, evidence preservation order
Jan 8, 2026
Initial publication