Judge Lifts Restraining Order, Allows DHS to Proceed with Evidence Disposal in ICE Shooting Case
MINNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL – In a ruling with significant implications for transparency and accountability, a U.S. federal judge in Minnesota on Monday dissolved a temporary restraining order that had blocked the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from destroying evidence related to the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents.
The case centers on the 2022 death of Pretti, a 34-year-old U.S. citizen, during an encounter with ICE officers in St. Paul. His family's wrongful death lawsuit alleges excessive force, and their attorneys sought the restraining order, arguing the preservation of all related documents, communications, and physical evidence was crucial for their case and public accountability.
DHS, which oversees ICE, has standard records retention schedules that allow for the disposal of certain non-core investigative materials after set periods. The agency argued in court filings that the dissolved order unnecessarily impeded routine administrative operations. The judge's decision to lift the injunction suggests the court found the plaintiffs' arguments for a broad preservation order insufficient at this stage, though the underlying lawsuit continues.
Legal experts note the ruling highlights the tension between government record-keeping protocols and the needs of civil litigation, particularly in cases involving alleged law enforcement misconduct. "This isn't just about one case," said Professor Elena Vance, a constitutional law scholar at the University of Minnesota. "It tests the mechanisms by which the public and affected families can scrutinize the actions of federal agencies, especially those with arrest and use-of-force authority."
The Pretti family's legal team expressed disappointment but vowed to continue their fight. "We will use every legal tool available to ensure a full accounting of what happened to Alex," said lead attorney Marcus Chen.
Voices from the Community
We asked local residents for their reaction to the news:
David Miller, 58, Retired Teacher: "The judge's decision is procedurally sound, but it feels like a setback for transparency. Families deserve every scrap of evidence when seeking justice against powerful government entities."
Rebecca Torres, 42, Community Organizer: "This is outrageous and predictable. It's another brick in the wall of impunity. How can we trust the process when the agency involved gets to decide what evidence even exists? It reeks of a cover-up."
James O'Connell, 61, Small Business Owner: "While the loss of any life is tragic, we have to assume agencies follow their own lawful procedures until proven otherwise. The courts move slowly, and this ruling is just one step. We should reserve judgment until the full case is heard."
(This report includes background context and analysis. Original reporting by Jack Queen and Kanishka Singh for Reuters.)