A federal judge heard arguments Monday regarding a temporary restraining order (TRO) intended to compel the Trump administration to preserve evidence related to the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti in Minneapolis. No ruling was made from the bench.
Evidence Preservation at Issue
During the hearing, Assistant U.S. Attorney Friedrich Siekert stated the government intends to preserve all evidence related to Saturday’s shooting until the conclusion of all federal matters. Siekert argued the TRO was unnecessary, as lawyers representing the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) had not presented proof that the government was failing to do so.
An FBI official, in a previously filed court declaration, stated that immediately following the shooting, agents adhered to a 12-step evidence collection and preservation process. However, the official also noted this process was “adapted for the safety of personnel” due to a volatile environment created by protesters.
Minnesota Assistant Attorney General Peter Farrell, representing the BCA, expressed “serious concerns” that a thorough and transparent investigation would be hampered by potential evidence mishandling. Farrell suggested the government may have already engaged in “potential spoliation” of evidence, referencing photos of the gun allegedly owned by Pretti.
What Happens Next?
The judge could rule to dissolve the temporary restraining order, siding with the government’s assertion that it is already preserving evidence. Alternatively, the judge could uphold the TRO, requiring the administration to continue its preservation efforts under the court’s oversight. It is also possible the judge could request further clarification or documentation from both sides before making a decision. A continued legal battle over evidence access and control is also a possibility, potentially delaying any further progress in the investigation.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a temporary restraining order?
A temporary restraining order is a short-term court order requiring a party to refrain from a specific action – in this case, potentially destroying or altering evidence – until a full hearing can be held.
Who is responsible for investigating the shooting?
Both the federal government and the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension are involved in investigating the shooting of Alex Pretti.
What concerns does the BCA have?
The BCA has “serious concerns” that the federal government may not be adequately preserving evidence related to the shooting, potentially hindering a thorough investigation.
Given the ongoing legal debate, what level of transparency will ultimately be afforded to the public regarding the investigation into the shooting of Alex Pretti?
