• U.S. District Judge Eric Tostrud dissolved a temporary restraining order that prevented DHS from altering evidence in the Alex Pretti shooting investigation
• The order had been issued Jan. 25 after Minnesota officials alleged federal agents denied state investigators access to the Minneapolis crime scene
• DHS officials argued the preservation mandate was unnecessary and characterized state concerns as politically motivated attacks on law enforcement

MINNEAPOLIS (TDR) — A federal judge has removed judicial oversight from the Department of Homeland Security's handling of evidence in the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti, clearing the way for federal officials to manage investigation materials without court-imposed preservation requirements. U.S. District Judge Eric Tostrud, a Trump appointee, dissolved the temporary restraining order on Feb. 2, just one week after issuing the emergency directive that had blocked DHS from destroying or altering materials related to the Jan. 24 killing.

The reversal hands exclusive control of the evidence back to federal authorities as tensions escalate between the Trump administration and Minnesota state officials over jurisdiction in officer-involved shooting investigations. The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension had sought the original order after Border Patrol agents allegedly prevented state investigators from accessing the crime scene at 26th Street and Nicollet Avenue and removed physical evidence before local authorities could execute a search warrant.

What Did the Original Order Require?

The temporary restraining order issued Jan. 25 specifically prohibited Immigration and Customs Enforcement and related agencies from destroying, altering, or disposing of evidence removed from the shooting scene, including body camera footage capturing the fatal encounter. Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison and Hennepin County officials filed emergency motions Saturday night alleging federal agents demonstrated apparent determination to deny state and local law enforcement access to critical materials.

Multiple bystander videos show Pretti, a 37-year-old ICU nurse, holding a phone and attempting to assist a woman who had been pepper-sprayed before agents tackled him and fired approximately 10 shots. Federal officials claimed Pretti was armed and represented a threat, though video footage does not appear to show him reaching for a weapon. The FBI conducted a preliminary crime scene evaluation but departed without allowing state investigators to enter, after which protesters overran the area and contaminated the scene.

"To have to go get an order from a judge to preserve that evidence is extraordinary and should alarm everyone who believes in equal justice under the law. After the FBI cleared the scene without providing the BCA access, local and state law enforcement officers were unable to hold the scene, and it was overrun by individuals in the area." —Keith Ellison, Minnesota Attorney General, via Minnesota Public Radio, Jan. 25, 2026

Why Did DHS Oppose the Preservation Mandate?

Department of Homeland Security officials immediately challenged the restraining order, arguing that standard internal procedures already ensured evidence preservation and that state officials were manufacturing a crisis for political purposes. Assistant DHS Secretary Tricia McLaughlin characterized the legal action as a ridiculous attempt to divide the American people and distract from the fact that officers were attacked during the operation.

"Any claim that the government would destroy evidence is a ridiculous attempt to divide the American people and distract from the fact that our law enforcement officers were attacked." —Tricia McLaughlin, Assistant DHS Secretary, via Axios, Jan. 25, 2026

McLaughlin maintained that the department's Office of Inspector General was conducting a thorough investigation according to established protocols. However, state officials noted that internal DHS investigations lack the transparency and subpoena power of state criminal proceedings, raising concerns about whether evidence will remain available for potential state homicide charges under Minnesota law.

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10

The BCA has historically led investigations into shootings involving federal law enforcement within the state, typically operating without federal interference. The denial of entry to state investigators represented what legal experts describe as an unprecedented breakdown in federal-state cooperation in officer-involved shooting cases.

How Will the Dissolution Affect the Investigation?

The lifting of the restraining order removes external judicial oversight at a critical moment when multiple investigations are ongoing, including potential state prosecution of the agents involved. Without the court order, federal officials face no legal obligation to preserve evidence in a form accessible to state prosecutors or to provide access to materials housed in federal facilities.

"The implication was they are not just keeping evidence from them but possibly destroying it. Clearly the state attorney general and the Minneapolis police have grave distrust with ICE and DHS. The line being drawn between Minnesota and the U.S. government goes against years of cooperation between local and federal agencies." —Jimmy Gurulé, University of Notre Dame Law School, via ABC News, Jan. 27, 2026

Legal experts note that the dissolution leaves state authorities dependent entirely on federal goodwill to access ballistics reports, autopsy results, and video footage. The Pretti family has accused the administration of spreading sickening lies about their son, disputing characterizations by Gregory Bovino, the Border Patrol commander who described Pretti as intending to massacre law enforcement.

"The sickening lies told about our son by the administration are reprehensible and disgusting. Alex is clearly not holding a gun when attacked by Trump's murdering and cowardly ICE thugs." —Pretti family statement via KARE 11, Jan. 24, 2026

Governor Tim Walz had urged President Trump to withdraw ICE agents from Minnesota before another killing occurs, calling the federal accounts of the shooting nonsense and lies. The dissolution of evidence protections now removes one of the last judicial constraints on federal operations in the state as the administration expands its immigration enforcement surge.

What Are the Broader Implications?

The case highlights growing friction between sanctuary jurisdictions and federal immigration authorities over accountability for use-of-force incidents. Minnesota officials argue that state law requires local oversight of officer-involved shootings regardless of the agency employing the officer, while federal authorities assert that immigration enforcement operations fall exclusively under Department of Homeland Security jurisdiction and internal review procedures.

The federal court's decision to dissolve the order rather than extend it signals judicial reluctance to intervene in federal evidence management, potentially establishing precedent for future conflicts between state and federal authorities in shooting investigations. Critics argue that allowing agencies to investigate their own personnel without state oversight undermines accountability mechanisms designed to prevent conflicts of interest.

Representative Ilhan Omar, whose district includes the shooting location, condemned the dissolution as a green light for federal agencies to hide evidence from public scrutiny. The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota has filed additional motions seeking to compel preservation of specific video materials, arguing that the public interest in transparency outweighs federal claims of operational privilege.

"This dissolution sends a chilling message that federal agents can operate with impunity in our communities, destroying or withholding evidence without judicial consequence." —ACLU Minnesota statement via NBC News, Feb. 2, 2026

Will the removal of judicial safeguards enable federal authorities to control the narrative through selective evidence management, or will state investigators find alternative pathways to hold officers accountable without direct access to original crime scene materials?

Sources

This report was compiled using information from Reuters coverage of the court ruling, U.S. News & World Report reporting on the dissolution hearing, Minnesota Public Radio coverage of the original restraining order, Axios reporting on DHS opposition, ABC News legal analysis, KARE 11 coverage of family statements, NBC News reporting on ACLU motions, NPR coverage of federal-state tensions, and MinnPost analysis of jurisdictional conflicts.

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10