Lawfare Daily: The Legal Fallout After a Fatal ICE Shooting in Minneapolis

Summary

---

The Lawfare Podcast

Episode: Lawfare Daily: The Legal Fallout After a Fatal ICE Shooting in Minneapolis
Date: January 9, 2026
Host: Anna Bauer (Senior Editor)
Guests: Eric Columbus (Senior Editor), Mike Feinberg (Senior Editor, former FBI official)

---

Overview

This episode examines the legal, procedural, and political fallout of a fatal shooting by an ICE officer in Minneapolis, in which 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good was killed. The discussion covers the known facts of the incident, the conflicting narratives from officials and video evidence, and the complex legal terrain surrounding federal agent accountability, investigations, civil litigation, and potential prosecution at the federal and state levels.

---

1. Facts and Competing Narratives

Timestamps: 01:51 – 06:38

What Happened?

• Eric Columbus summarizes the incident:
  • Multiple video accounts show ICE agents approached Renee Good’s car (a Honda Pilot) on a residential Minneapolis street.
  • Agents appear to tell her to move; one tries the door handle.
  • Good backs up, then pulls forward slowly. An ICE agent fires three shots (at least one through the windshield).
  • Her car veers and crashes; she dies shortly after.
  • It's unclear if her car ever made contact with the officer, but shots were fired before any impact.
• Mike Feinberg notes the lack of detailed official release:

  "There has not been a lot of factual information released by the government at this point beyond general statements." (04:48)

Official Statements vs. Video Evidence

• Anna Bauer: Official claims (including DHS/President) state Good “intentionally tried to run over officers” and term it “domestic terrorism,” which conflicts with video evidence showing she drove at low speed and the use of force appears preemptive (05:39).
• Mike Feinberg:

  "This is pretty out of the ordinary...for it to come not only from the agency head, but also from the President of the United States or the Vice President is extremely out of the ordinary for historical practice." (06:38)

  • Stresses deviation from historical “no comment during open investigation” policy, now common for the current administration.

---

2. Use of Force Policies and Legal Standards

Timestamps: 09:21 – 15:06

Federal Use of Force Policy

• Mike Feinberg:
  • There's a hesitancy among law enforcement to judge if a use of force was “in policy” due to the subjective nature of “reasonable belief” of the officer.
  • Key legal standards come from Graham v. Connor and Tennessee v. Garner:
    • Force must be “objectively reasonable” — meaning the officer has probable cause the subject posed an imminent deadly threat.
  • Variations exist between agencies; moving vehicle situations especially complex.
    • Feinberg’s blunt take:

    "Based on the videos I saw yesterday, I do not think if the DOJ deadly force policy was in play, that this would be considered what law enforcement officers refer to as a ‘good shoot’." (13:41)

---

3. State vs. Federal Prosecution and Immunity

Timestamps: 15:06 – 24:38

State Authority and the Removal Statute

• Eric Columbus:
  • States can prosecute federal agents, but agents are generally immune if they acted “objectively reasonably and in carrying out their duties.”
  • The federal officer removal statute lets officers move a case from state to federal court if they present a “colorable defense” of immunity.
  • Example: Ruby Ridge 1992—an FBI agent’s state prosecution was moved to federal court; ultimate dismissal depended on whether actions were “objectively reasonable.”
  • Quote:

    "This statute goes back actually to the War of 1812...that federal courts are more likely to be on the lookout for the rights of federal officers against possibly hostile state prosecutors." (16:27)

  • Even if removed, agent would be tried under state law—no presidential pardon possible.

Nuances of Minnesota Law

• Local law and justification standards differ and would govern in any state prosecution (23:47).

---

4. Investigative Jurisdiction and FBI Role

Timestamps: 24:38 – 32:42

Who Investigates?

• FBI is investigating, but for what?

  • Feinberg:

    "People should not assume, unless we are explicitly told differently...that the investigation going on now has the ICE agent as the subject." (26:01)

  • The FBI might be investigating a possible assault on a federal officer (the ICE agent) rather than the officer’s conduct.

• Why aren't state authorities getting information?

  • Normal: FBI rarely shares details during an ongoing investigation.
  • Not normal: public statements by leadership, or leaks aligning with political advantage.

Parallel Investigations

• Feinberg:
  • “Parallel” federal-state investigations are rare except where both have a clear stake; usually, one agency leads and may embed other agency personnel.

Minnesota’s Role and Limitations

• Eric Columbus:

  "Minnesota has basically boosted its own criminal investigation capacities in cases such as this as a result of the investigation of George Floyd." (29:03)

  • The real-world impact of this increased state capacity is yet to be seen.
  • Federal rulings/law limit state prosecution of federal agents.

---

5. Investigation Scenarios and Legal Fallout

Timestamps: 32:42 – 37:00

FBI’s Focus

• Mike Feinberg:
  • The FBI might focus on the narrative that Good was assaulting a federal officer, which would bolster the officer’s defense if he believed he was in danger.
  • The decision whether the officer’s fear was reasonable depends in part on proving an assault was attempted by the driver.

Civil Litigation and Qualified Immunity

• Anna Bauer:
  • Suing a federal officer is often blocked by robust qualified immunity doctrine.
• Mike Feinberg:
  • Officers carry liability insurance, have union/organizational support, and rarely handle litigation unaided.
  • Quote:

    "There is a machine that will be put in motion now that has done this before, even if the individual officer has never been involved." (39:39)

---

6. Video Evidence, Body Cameras, and Transparency

Timestamps: 40:11 – 43:27

• Anna Bauer: Actual policies on ICE agent bodycams could affect how much footage comes out.
• Mike Feinberg:
  • Federal bodycam usage is new and inconsistent; details on requirements and policy implementation could determine what is released.

  • "It is a fairly new development only since the murder of George Floyd that federal officers are wearing body worn cameras at all." (41:38)

  • Historically, agencies rush to exonerating tape release; current administration unpredictable.

---

7. Notable Quotes and Moments

• Anna Bauer (on federal/state forums):

  "Just because a case is removed to federal court, the charges stay the same...that still means that there's no opportunity for a pardon." (22:32)

• Mike Feinberg (on historical deviation):

  "Is this shocking and surprising in the overarching history of law enforcement in the United States? Absolutely. Is it shocking and surprising in ... the past 12 months? Not at all." (09:04)

• Eric Columbus (on standard for use of force):

  "Federal agents are immune from state prosecution if they acted in an objectively reasonable manner in carrying out their duties." (01:06 and repeated at 15:46)

---

8. What We Don’t Know (Yet)

Timestamps: 40:11 – 43:27

• Complete release of all available video and bodycam footage.
• Details of the actual operation and ICE protocol for this situation.
• Whether state or federal charges will be brought, and against whom.
• Impact of policy differences between agencies on investigation outcome.
• Unfolding of state vs. federal investigative cooperation/competition.

---

Conclusion

This episode navigates the tangled legal and ethical issues arising from the Minneapolis ICE shooting. The discussion highlights conflicting facts, political pressure and public narratives, complexities of federal-state jurisdiction, standards for officer conduct, barriers to prosecution and civil liability, and the practical realities—both in evidence-gathering and officer support—facing all sides moving forward. The Lawfare team stresses how the case will likely hinge on decisions about reasonable threat perception, jurisdictional boundaries, and the evolving norms governing law enforcement transparency and oversight.

---

Transcript

[BetterHelp Ad Narrator]

This is an ad by BetterHelp.

[BetterHelp Ad Participant]

Did I talk too much?

[Mike Feinberg]

Can't I just let it go?

[BetterHelp Ad Participant]

I was thinking so much.

[BetterHelp Ad Narrator]

Take a breath. You're not alone. Let's talk about what's going on. Counseling helps you sort through the noise with qualified professionals. And online therapy makes it convenient. See if it's for you. Visit betterhelp.com randompodcast for 10% off your first month of online therapy. And let life feel free. Better.

[Blue Apron Ad Narrator]

Mom, dad, I'm not throwing shade, but the whole New Year's resolution thing kind of slippin. No offense. Anyway, my best friend Jenny's dad crushing it. He uses Blue Apron. He says he ordered one pan assemble and bake meals and these things called meal kits. They're all super easy to make. He keeps yelling protein and fiber, baby. Also the food. We tried it. So good. So maybe check it out or whatever.

[BetterHelp Ad Narrator]

Blue apron.

[Blue Apron Ad Narrator]

Get 50% off your first two orders plus free shipping with code. Listen 50 terms and conditions apply. Visit blueapron.com terms for free.

[BetterHelp Ad Narrator]

More.

[Eric Columbus]

Generally speaking, federal agents are immune from state prosecution if they acted in an objectively reasonable manner in carrying out their duties. So that's kind of a two part test whether they're carrying out their duties and whether their actions were objectively reasonable.

[Anna Bauer]

It's the Lawfare podcast. I'm senior editor Anna Bauer with senior editors Eric Columbus and Mike Feinberg.

[Mike Feinberg]

If they find that the conduct of the driver did in fact meet the requirements for an assault on a federal officer, then that's going to necessarily impact how seriously you take the mindset and testimony of the officer who fired the shots.

[Anna Bauer]

Today we're talking about the legal fallout in the aftermath of a fatal shooting by an ICE agent in Minneapolis. Eric and Mike, we have convened to record this podcast today on Thursday, January 8, to discuss the tragic events that occurred yesterday in Minneapolis. A 37 year old woman and mother of a young child, Renee Nicole Good, was shot and killed by an ICE officer. The shooting has sparked national outrage and calls for an investigation and potential charges against the officer. There's all kinds of legal issues that we can get into, but I want to start with what we know about this very fast moving story. So Eric, can you tell us a little bit about what happened yesterday in Minneapolis? What do we know and what do we not know?

[Eric Columbus]

Sure. So there are multiple video accounts of what happened, which is the primary sources at this point. It appears that a woman was in a car, reportedly a Honda Pilot, on a residential street in Minnesota in Minneapolis, and ICE agents were in a Nearby car. There may have been other ICE agents the area. Some ICE agents approached her car and on foot and apparently told her to move her car. She was at that point perpendicular to the road. It was either a two way street or a. A one way street with two lanes. And one agent kind of put his reach to. To her door handle. May have been trying to get inside her door. She backed up a bit and then tried to pull forwards at low speed. At that point a different ICE agent fired apparently three bullets at her. At least one of them through her front windshield. I'm not sure about whether the others were through the front or through the side windshield. The car then turned to the right and slowly crashed into a car in front of it, maybe 50ft down. And the. The woman then, then died as a result of the crash. It's not 100% clear whether or not her car touched the officer at all. From some angles it looks like he was clipped a bit, but does seem like he fired before that happened and she was traveling at a very slow speed. Mike, if there's anything you want to supplement to that, then go ahead.

[Mike Feinberg]

No, those that very accurately relays the facts as I have understood them as well, which I will also hasten to add, is based entirely about various news reports and firsthand footage by people at the scene. There has not been a lot of factual information released by the government at this point. Beyond general statements of support from the very highest levels of the executive branch to individuals in the department that is not based on opinion or defense of the officer. Nothing has been officially released which can shed light on person's movements or trajectories or the substance of any interactions that were not captured by those cameras on scene.

[Anna Bauer]

Yeah. So Mike, you mentioned the statements that some high level officials have made in the wake of this shooting. DHS officials have given an account of the shooting in which they claim that the victim, Renee Goode, intentionally tried to run over ICE officers. They called it an act of domestic terrorism. The President of the United States himself has said that she did run over an ICE officer. It seems to me that the videos that we have seen clearly contradict those accounts. But I'm curious, you know, what you make of this as yourself, being a former law enforcement officer. It seemed to me that those public statements about the shooting were really out of step with, with what would be the kind of usual process of an investigation and not commenting on an ongoing investigation. But what did you make of it, Mike?

[Mike Feinberg]

It is certainly a deviation from historical practice during the nearly two decades I spent in federal service as a special agent officer involved shootings. Whether an internal investigation done by the agency to which the officer belonged or whether an external investigation of another agency are fundamentally investigations. And most departments do have very explicit policies on not commenting on ongoing investigations. And there's a couple reasons for this. First of all, until the investigation is fully completed, you don't actually know what happened. And there's just a risk, as pedestrian as this sounds, of embarrassment by stating facts that could be proven wrong a few days or weeks later. The second is you have to be cognizant that all these investigations could, under some circumstances, result in indictments or formal charges. And you don't want to do anything that is going to taint a future case or a potential jury pool. This is pretty out of the ordinary. And for it to come not only from the agency head, but also from the President of the United States or the Vice President of the United States is extremely out of the ordinary for historical practice. But it should be noted, not out of the ordinary at all. For this administration, they're has been a pretty consistent drumbeat of public statements about ongoing investigations when those statements will either help curry favor with the President or further the agency's official position. You know, the Atlantic Monthly has written articles about this. Lawfare itself has written articles about this. There is a tendency from law enforcement and Justice Department officials to regularly tweet updates states on investigations that they know the President is following. And there is a tendency to let certain friendly media outlets know what's going on in these investigations before others. So is this shocking and surprising in the overarching history of law enforcement in the United States? Absolutely. Is it shocking and surprising in the history of law enforcement in the United States for the past 12 months? Not at all.

[Anna Bauer]

Yeah. And another thing that stood out to me as well about some of the statements, one of them was Kristi Noem said that the officer was an experienced officer who acted within his training. Mike, you've never been a nice officer, but you were a longtime FBI official, and I understand that you spent some time yesterday combing through various, you know, policy documents and training guidance. So what can you tell us about ICE or federal official use of force policies? Do you looking at these videos and understanding that, you know, we don't have all of the facts here, but do you think that the officer's actions were consistent with those policies?

[Mike Feinberg]

So there's quite a bit to unpack in that question. First of all, I would be not diligent if I didn't Point out that part of the reason we may be seeing so many comments is for the first time in history we are seeing the people running these agencies have no firsthand personal experience with how they operate. In that, you know, the head of the FBI has traditionally been a judicial official or a very high ranking former DOJ official. The head of DHS has been somebody with extensive government service. It's a younger organization, so there aren't as many veterans who are free to take the job now. But Kristi Noem, as far as I know, has zero federal law enforcement or prosecutorial experience, which may explain partly why she is so eager and willing to comment on this. For the second part of your question, what you're asking me to do is sort of violating in unofficial oath among all law enforcement officers, which is, it is very inappropriate, we generally feel, to explicitly state whether somebody was in or outside of policy for the simple reason that under the legal standards and under the use of force policies, which are based on those legal standards, a lot depends on the individual officer's perception of what was occurring. So deadly force policies differ from department to department. DHS's policy is not the exact same as DOJ's policy, but they share a number of commonalities because they all stem really from the same two cases. And this is all within the Fourth Amendment context, because shootings are treated, believe it or not, as seizures. You are essentially seizing the body of the person you shoot. And the controlling case is a case, I believe, and I'm going to explain in a minute why I don't have the site. Offhand, I think it was Graham v. Connor, which states that an officer's use of force in this context has to be objectively reasonable. And there is a later case, Tennessee versus Garner, maybe Garner versus Tennessee. I forget which sort of develops that standard. And what eventually comes out of that is that the action is objectively reasonable if the officer involved has probable cause to believe that the subject of deadly force is posing an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer, him or herself, or to another human being. So it's a little interesting that we use the term objectively reasonable because you're basing it fundamentally on something that is inherently subjective, which is the individual's perception of the events that are occurring and whether that individual has a reasonable belief that there is a serious threat of imminent death or physical injury to himself or another person. And what is going to really be the deciding factor in the evaluation of whether this ICE officer was objectively reasonable was did he believe that she was actually going to attempt to run him over. I would be remiss if I didn't note that the area of deadly force intersecting with moving vehicles is actually a fairly nuanced and metamorphosizing area of law. And this is the one area, interestingly, where different departments have different interpretations and allowances of how an agent can behave. Based on the videos I saw yesterday, I do not think if the DOJ deadly force policy was in play, that this would be considered what law enforcement officers refer to as a good shoot. And by good shoot, nobody means that it's a good thing to shoot happens. It just means that the shoot was justified under policy. Under DHS deadly force policy, I think there is a chance that the agent involved, the officer involved, would be within scope. But again, it's really hard to say based on the limited information we have.

[Anna Bauer]

Thanks, that's really helpful. So beyond the policy question, which I think is also kind of overlaps with the question of whether there was a violation of law law here, there's the question of, you know, who could potentially investigate and prosecute in a situation like this? Eric, there have been calls for authorities in Minnesota at the state level to investigate and potentially bring charges against this officer. What can you tell us about whether or not Minnesota can prosecute a federal official? And, and what would some of the obstacles be key to doing so?

[Eric Columbus]

So, generally speaking, it is harder but not impossible for a state to prosecute a federal officer. Generally speaking, federal agents are immune from state prosecution if they acted in an objectively reasonable manner in carrying out their duties. So that's kind of a two part part test whether they're carrying out their duties and whether their actions were objectively reasonable. If Minnesota chose to prosecute, there is something known as the federal officer removal statute, which allows a federal officer to transfer a criminal case from state court to federal court if he has a colorable defense of immunity, as he probably would hear, it would not mean that he wins necessarily, just that he has a plausible sounding enough defense that it should be adjudicated by federal courts. And this is, this statute goes back actually to the War of 1812 and is designed to basically on the theory that federal courts are more likely to be on the lookout for the rights of federal officers against possibly hostile state prosecutors, even though of course, the jury pool is, is the same in, in both cases, more or less, they both would be the residents of Minnesota. And so, for example, there was a tragic case In, I believe, 1992 or thereabouts, the Ruby Ridge standoff in which the FBI tried to arrest a, I believe, member of a right wing militia named Randy Weaver.

[Mike Feinberg]

He. He was a solo survivalist who had built a. Not a commune because it was just him and his family, but he built a compound on a mountainside basically. And two U.S. marshals had gone there to serve him with papers. I believe he murdered one of them. And it resulted in a long siege involving the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team and his family.

[Eric Columbus]

Yeah. And at the end of that, that siege, a. An FBI special agent was, I believe, aiming at one person in the compound and fired and accidentally hit and killed Weaver's wife, who was holding their infant daughter at the time in her arms. The DOJ investigated, chose not to prosecute. The state of Idaho did choose to prosecute and the case was removed to federal court. The district court granted the motion of the FBI agent to dismiss the case on grounds of immunity. The case was appealed by the federal government, wound up going to en banc 9th Circuit which held that on the facts before it, it could not determine whether the agent's actions were objectively reasonable. And it remanded for fact finding to the the district court. So you've got this kind of weird situation where he's setting up a trial where you need kind of like a little pre trial before it in order to have an evidentiary hearing to find out whether or not the objectively reasonable test was met for the actual trial. We don't know what would have happened because the state prosecutor eventually chose to drop the case. You shake your head, Mike.

[Mike Feinberg]

The state prosecutor did not choose to drop the case. The state prosecutor was voted out in the subsequent election and the successor state prosecution prosecutor did not move forward with it.

[Eric Columbus]

Thanks for that clarification. So yes, that basically the result was that the state chose not to go forward. So it was it, it ended. But that is how it would play out in this situation if Minnesota chose to prosecute the ICE agent who shot and killed.

[Mike Feinberg]

Good.

[BetterHelp Ad Narrator]

This is an ad by BetterHelp.

[BetterHelp Ad Participant]

Did I talk too much?

[Mike Feinberg]

I just let it go.

[BetterHelp Ad Narrator]

Take a breath. You're not alone. Let's talk about what's going on. Counseling helps you sort through the noise with qualified professionals. And online therapy makes it convenient. See if it's for you. Visit betterhelp.com randompodcast for 10% off your first month of online therapy and let life feel free. Better. It's 2026 and if you're still paying rent without Bilt, it's time for a change. BILT is a loyalty program for renters that rewards you for your biggest monthly expense. Rent. I don't like paying rent, and I bet you don't either, but BILT makes it feel a little better. BILT is the loyalty program for renters that rewards you monthly with points and exclusive benefits in your neighborhood. Let me explain. With Bilt, every rent payment earns you points that can be used towards flights, hotels, Lyft rides, Amazon.com purchases and so much more. And here's something I'm really excited about. Starting in February, BILT members can earn points on mortgage payments for the first time. Soon you'll be able to get rewarded wherever you live and unlock exclusive benefits with more than 45,000 restaurants, fitness studios, pharmacies and other neighborhood partners. Personally, I'd use my Bilt points for travel. Turning rent into flights feels like a win. It's simple. Paying rent is better with Bilt, and soon owning a home will be better with Bilt, too. Earn rewards and get something back wherever you live. Join the loyalty program for renters at joinbuilt.com acast that's J-O-I-N-B-I-L-T.com acast make sure to use our URL so they know we sent you.

[BetterHelp Ad Participant]

We interrupt your regularly scheduled podcast with some breaking news. Millions of people are now playing the mobile puzzle game Royal Kingdom. This is not a drill. Royal Kingdom has thousands of levels and is incredibly fun. What's that? I'm hearing from my producer that it has no ads and it is completely free to download. What's next? You're gonna tell me it doesn't need WI fi? This just in. Royal Kingdom doesn't need WI fi to play. We will continue to keep you updated as this story develops, but get it today and see for yourself. Download it on the Google Play or App Store today.

[Anna Bauer]

Yeah, and am I correct that the way that this would work as you've described is there's first this first step of removal to federal court? And this removal question came up in the context of the Trump cases a lot that we covered very closely. People like Mark Meadows tried to remove. There was an evidentiary hearing around it. He testified in court. So we're pretty familiar and we've talked a lot at Lawfare about these removal questions. But just to remind folks, it's my understanding that just because a case is removed to federal court, the charges stay the same. These would still remain state charges even though the forum is different in that the case would play out in federal court and Supremacy Clause Immunity could be raised as a defense there. But it seems to me that that still means that there's no opportunity for a pardon, which of course, if there were to be federal charges, which we'll, we'll get to the federal investigation side of this, then that would be pardon eligible. Am I right about that? Eric is that's, that's an excellent point.

[Eric Columbus]

And it's definitely right. The president would not be able to pardon the agent. And also we should note that it would. The prosecution would then depend upon the actual text and interpretation of the Minnesota state law, either a murder statute or a. I don't know anything about Minnesota law, whether there are maybe a negligent homicide or voluntary homicide. Different states call these things different things. And what Minnesota law says about when one may legally use force. So the federal court would then be applying that law. And in order to secure conviction, the prosecutors would would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this federal agent violated a Minnesota criminal statute.

[Anna Bauer]

Right. And that's a great point, because justification defenses are, can be very different from state to state in terms of what makes the conduct unlawful. So it'll be very interesting to take a deep dive look at some of those that Minnesota law, because that's something that I have not looked into myself. Mike, I want to come back to you to talk about the federal investigation aspect of this. The FBI has said that there is an investigation. I understand that there's also an investigation that's ongoing in Minnesota. And as we record this on, on Thursday, January 8th, there's also news reports this morning that the FBI is refusing to share investigatory materials with the state investigators. So what can you tell us about the FBI investigation? What do we know about it? And then also, how do jurisdictional issues in these kinds of cases typically work? Because my understanding is that it's a separate sovereign's doctrine means that the state could investigate as well as the FBI. But, but Kristi Noem this morning said that the state has no jurisdiction in this matter. So what can you tell us about all of that?

[Mike Feinberg]

Well, I would not be relying on Kristi Noem for acute legal analysis, but I'll get to that in a second.

[Anna Bauer]

Good point.

[Mike Feinberg]

So I want to. I think the first thing we need to say is the FBI is conducting an investigation. We do not know what the investigation investigation is of. There is going to be a tendency to jump to the conclusion that the FBI is investigating the shooting probably under a color of law theory that the civil rights of the victim were violated. But what is probably more likely I would assumed, based on our current environment, that what the FBI is actually doing is conducting an assault on a federal officer investigation with respect to the driver and potentially the passenger of the vehicle in question. People should not assume, unless we are explicitly told differently by somebody in authority in the government, that the investigation going on now has the ICE agent as the subject. Now, that said, regardless of what type of, of an investigation is being carried out right now, you know I'm going to do something I haven't really done since May 31st when I resigned from the FBI, which is to defend the FBI leadership. It is very out of the ordinary when there is any sort of ongoing investigation for the FBI to share evidence or case files with state or local agencies or prosecutors. Generally speaking, until the FBI has completed its investigation and either, not to use the legal term, but absolved somebody, or there are formal charges, or in the case of a deceased subject, a statement that were the subject alive there would be formal charges, the FBI is generally not supposed to or going to remark on what they're finding or provide their findings to anyone else during the investigation's lifespan. Now, complicating this is, as we discussed earlier and as has been written about extensively in multiple outlets, that's not a policy that the current heads of these organizations tend to follow now, except when it benefits them. You know, we've seen multiple comments about the search at former Ambassador John Bolton's house, which Cash Patel and Dan Bongino were live tweeting as it was happening. We've seen multiple statements about the Comey investigation, multiple statements about the James investigation. So it's totally natural for people to assume, if they haven't followed this stuff for decades, that it's weird that the FBI is not sharing anything now. But that's actually. That's the norm.

[Anna Bauer]

Yeah. Eric, do you have anything to add on that about any of the jurisdictional questions between the state and the FBI here?

[Eric Columbus]

I think one thing that's kind of interesting is that this is obviously the same city where George Floyd was, was killed by then state police officers five years ago. And I've been reading that Minnesota has basically boosted its own criminal investigation capacities in cases such as this as a result of the investigation of George Floyd. So it'll be interesting to see if they can find a way to try to deploy that in the weeks and months ahead.

[Mike Feinberg]

I'd like to add just a couple of wrinkles for our listeners to keep in mind as the story progresses. First, there's going to be a lot of talk if the FBI is investigating the shooting itself about parallel investigations. And I want people to understand how this generally works in practice. Parallel investigations, that is investigations where there is an open case at the state level and an open case at the federal level, and the two agencies are cooperating hand in glove to try and reach a common conclusion, or common findings are actually fairly rare. You get them a lot of times in violent crime and drug cases where there are different state statutes that you might want to prosecute at the state level and federal statutes that you want to federally prosecute at the federal level. But what is far more common is for one agency to take the lead based upon where the charges are going to be the most successful and result in the greatest sentence, and embed personnel from the other agency with their team, with their task force, while that case is worked at either the federal level or the state level. So when we talk about parallel investigations, I just want people to understand that is more nuanced than it sounds. The second thing I want to add is there is an exception to the normally deliberative timeline that is probably governing how this investigation is being run. If it is an investigation into the shooting and not an investigation into an assault on a federal officer, and that is when it is an internal investigation investigation, when it is the FBI investigating an FBI agent shooting, when it is ICE or DHS investigating an ICE agent shooting, and it's a matter of internal affairs, those are done with extreme alacrity. And they are done that way specifically to forestall any divergence between what the state may do and what the federal government may do. So if there is an internal investigation into an officer involved shooting or an agent involved shooting, and the agent or officer is fundamentally exonerated, and I use that term colloquially in the course of that investigation, it is not uncommon for the local U.S. attorney or Department of justice to very quickly relay those findings to state or local prosecutors in the hopes of stop. Of avoiding a situation where the state says X happened and the federal government says y happened.

[Anna Bauer]

Yeah. So, Mike, I'm. I'm curious. I want to get to the question of, you know, some of the potential civil litigation aspects of this, but before we do, because we've been focusing on the criminal investigatory side or internal FBI investigatory side, you've mentioned that this FBI investigation on the subject might not be predicated on, you know, a deadly use of force, but instead assault of an officer. Can you just give us more of an overview of what you mean by that? Because when I hear that, I think, oh, but the potential Subject is deceased. So what do you mean by that when you say that the subject of. Of this investigation could be assault on an officer?

[Mike Feinberg]

Yeah. So essentially, the narratives that we're able to construct based on what we know is that there was somebody involved in some sort of behavior. It's been reported, reported that they were ICE watchers, videotaping things that were going on, alerting residents. They were in a vehicle that was parked in such a manner that being charitable to how ICE reacted, ICE was attempting to get them to move. Now, I don't know. That's what ICE was doing. The language and level of aggression that we see in the videos would argue they were trying to do something more extreme and potentially interfere with the individual's First Amendment rights. Because one of the ICE officers start swearing, lunging to the door, and threatening to pull the driver out. That seems like a really unnecessary escalation of the situation, particularly as it looks like the driver was trying to get away from the area. But let's put that aside. If I'm the ICE officer and I'm looking to justify the shots I made under my agency's deadly force policy, the only way I can do that in that scenario is if I am in legitimate fear for my life by the objectively reasonable standard that the court outlined in Graham v. Connor. Now, the only way in that situation that that is going to happen is if I can say the driver from the point of view of that agent at the front of the vehicle. If I can say the driver was going to attempt to run me over.

[Anna Bauer]

And so that investigation would be carried out even though there's no chance of criminal prosecution of the driver.

[Mike Feinberg]

Yeah. It's actually important because if they find that the conduct of the driver did in fact meet the requirements for an assault on a federal officer, then that's going to necessarily impact how seriously you take the mindset and testimony of the officer who fired the shots.

[Anna Bauer]

I see. But you're not suggesting some type of, like, accessory liability investigation of the people who were around the car, is that. Am I right? Okay.

[Mike Feinberg]

Yeah. No. When I say assault on a federal officer case, what I'm talking about is they may very well be examining the conduct of the driver and quite possibly the conduct of the passenger in terms of whether they were trying to harm the agent who is in the front of the vehicle.

[Anna Bauer]

I see. Okay. I just wanted to get a better understanding of that. That's very interesting. Thank you. So I want to talk a little bit about potential litigation in the civil context. As people may know who listen to the Lawfare podcast. It is very difficult, if not impossible often to su an officer for wrongful death because the doctrine of qualified immunity is so robust. But Mike, I'm curious if you have thoughts about how, if there is a civil suit brought by the family members of Renee Good, how, how would the officer here potentially defend himself or prepare to defend himself in such a case?

[Mike Feinberg]

So I'm not going to address the legal aspects of the defense. I'm going to address more the pragmatic. Because this situation is something that law enforcement officers are prepared to confront from probably the first or second day that they begin their training. And the officer has probably taken a number of steps without knowing that this situation was ever going to occur in reality, to deal with it as a hypothetical. So the first is almost every federal officer who follows the news and is engaged in tactical situations is probably going to have federal law enforcement officer professional liability insurance. Now. So people need to understand, a lot of times when a federal officer gets sued for hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars, they're actually covered by an insurance policy the same way that a homeowner or an automobile driver is covered by an insurance policy. And their legal fees, their legal representation, any damages is going to come out of that, not necessarily their personal pocket. The second thing to realize is that some law enforcement agencies have unions very similar to local fraternal order of police type unions that are going to also provide them with representation and public affairs support throughout this endeavor. And a lot of the agencies for which unionization is prohibited by federal statute are going to have an agents association or be members of the federal Law Enforcement officers association that is going to do the same thing. And those are the groups that will usually offer statements publicly in support of the officers rather than the division heads themselves, like Secretary Noem or Director Patel. So it's important to understand, like no officer faced with this situation is going to be dealing with it for not the first time, but in a totally impromptu fashion. There are entire organizations and corporations that exist to do nothing but represent and support officers in these sort of matters. What I mean by articulating all of this is that law enforcement officers, when confronted with this situation, aren't going to personally become enmeshed in discussions of legal strategy or precedent because there is an entire ecosystem that already exists which is there for them to draw upon to defend themselves. There is a machine that will be put in motion now that has done this before, even if the individual officer has never been involved, that is shooting him or herself.

[Anna Bauer]

Thanks, Mike. That's helpful. So I want to end by focusing on what we don't know or what we haven't seen yet. What we have seen is a number of videos from various angles showing these events. But you know, my understanding from watching those videos, it looks like the ICE officer was filming on his iPhone in the immediate, in the immediately preceding moments before the shooting. There's also been in litigation a lot of issues over ICE body cams and whether those ought to be turned on. There's DHS policy covering that, I believe. So I'm just curious from either of you, what do you think is yet to be seen in terms of the actual video evidence of this episode and what policies or court orders are there that might cover whether that body cam footage has to be released and so on. Mike, do you have thoughts on that?

[Mike Feinberg]

Yeah, I do. I think it's potential that we actually see quite a bit more in the days and weeks to come. Different agencies have different body worn camera policies and when they have to be turned on, some are they have to be turned on any time you're interacting with the public. DOJ's policy was they only need to be turned on and worn during pre planned operations. So a lot's going to hinge upon not just DHS as policy, but if there's a specific policy for ice, what sort of operation was this? Was there an ops plan? Was it reactive where the body cams on because of something else and they just never turn them off. People understand like these things aren't running 24, 7 for federal officers. It is a fairly new development only since the murder of George Floyd that federal officers are wearing body worn cameras at all. It's something that has long been common for state and local officials. It is something that is still, still very new for the federal level. You know, my last full year in the FBI, 2024, our field office was still figuring out our specific policy. There's general DOJ guidance, there's general DHS guidance, but there's still going to be some latitude given to the individual offices for how to put that guidance into process practice. So there's going to be a lot of nuance to this. Now in years past, whenever there has been footage of a very controversial operation and that footage can shed light on what actually happened, particularly if it's exonerating of the agency's actions, there is a rush to get it released. But again, we're in uncharted territory with how this administration and its agencies are dealing with the public. So I don't want to get anybody's hopes up about that happening.

[Anna Bauer]

Eric and Mike, we will leave it there. Thank you so much for joining me today.

[Eric Columbus]

Thank you, Anna.

[Anna Bauer]

The Lawfare Podcast is produced by the Lawfare Institute. You can get ad free versions of this and other Lawfare Podcasts by becoming a Lawfare Material supporter at our website, lawfairmedia.org support. You'll also get access to special events and other content available only to our supporters. Please rate and review us wherever you get your podcast. Look out for our other podcasts including Rational Security, Allies, the Aftermath and Escalation, our Lawfare Presents Podcast series about the war in Ukraine. Check out our other written work [e-mail] the podcast is edited by Jen Patya and our audio engineer. This episode was Kara Shillin of Goat Rodeo. Our theme song is from Alibi Music. As always, thank you for listening.

[BetterHelp Ad Participant]

Why Choose a Sleep Number Smart bed?

[BetterHelp Ad Narrator]

Can I make my sight softer?

[BetterHelp Ad Participant]

Can I make my site firmer? Can we sleep cooler? Sleep Number does that cools up to eight times faster and lets you choose your optimum ideal comfort on either side. Your sleep number setting J.D. power ranks sleep number number one in customer satisfaction with mattresses purchased in store and online. And now the more you buy, the more you save on beds, faces and more limited time. For J.D. power 2025 award information, visit J.D. power.com awards. Check it out at the Sleep Number Store or SleepNumber.com today.