Whether the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer who fatally shot a Minneapolis woman in her car Wednesday faces criminal prosecution may come down to the details.
Federal officials claim the officer acted in self-defense when he opened fire on Renee Nicole Macklin Good, 37, as her car moved forward during an apparent confrontation with several officers.
But local leaders quickly called the shooting unjustified, vowing to probe whether his actions violated state law.
The courts may be forced to parse the facts. Before that, so must investigators.
“As a prosecutor, I know that it’s easy for people on the outside to draw conclusions based on limited evidence,” said Mark Osler, a former federal prosecutor who recently served a yearlong term as deputy attorney for Hennepin County, where the shooting occurred.
“But we really do have to have a little patience so the people who see more than we do can make an evaluation,” he said.
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison (D) said Wednesday that “if anyone broke the law” he would do everything in his power to ensure they’re “held accountable.” Meanwhile, Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty (D) said her office was “pushing hard” for a local investigation — the “only way” to ensure “full transparency and review” of the incident.
Federal law enforcement officers have significant legal protections when acting in the course of official duties, but they aren’t ironclad. If federal officers violate federal law or their actions aren’t “necessary and proper” to fulfill their federal duties, courts have said they can face state charges.
Video footage shows Macklin Good’s car surrounded by three officers, with one telling the woman to “get out of the f‑‑‑ing car,” while one masked officer repeatedly pulls on the driver-side door handle. The masked officer who ultimately fired the shots approaches the car from the front and begins to draw his weapon as the car turns its wheels — beginning to drive away from the officers.
Three shots ring out, starting as the officer is in front of the car and continuing as it passes to his side. With Macklin Good shot, the car then careens to the side of the road, crashing into a parked car.
Minnesota’s use-of-force laws allow state police to use deadly force where a reasonable officer would believe such force is necessary to protect themselves or others from death or serious injury. Federal law likewise permits deadly force when a reasonable officer would have probable cause to believe a person poses the immediate threat of death or serious harm.
Rep. Glenn Ivey (D-Md.), who prosecuted police excessive force cases as a state’s attorney for Prince George’s County, said any case would likely come down to whether the officer followed department guidelines in how he responded.
“When you prosecute these cases, the issue is going to be, was it consistent with this training and with the departmental standards?” he told The Hill.
“I would think that at a minimum, he violated the training and rules that they’re supposed to follow in the way that he got in front of the car, drew the weapon and started firing,” Ivey said.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has clear guidelines for dealing with someone in a vehicle. Officers are barred from firing “warning shots” at someone in a car, even if only to disable the vehicle. And officers are largely “prohibited from discharging firearms at the operator of a moving vehicle” and are required to think about the safety of their fellow officers and any bystanders when they do so.
The firing officer’s moves also appear to run counter to DHS training, which directs officers to approach vehicles in a “tactical L” formation to prevent crossfire and instructs them to never get in front of a vehicle.
“You should never come in front of a car when you’re trying to stop it. And he knew that they were trying to stop the car, because the officer on the other side was trying to open the door to get to the keys. So this was stupid, to walk in front of the car,” Ivey said.
He noted the shots were fired in proximity to other officers and numerous bystanders who were recording the incident.
“It was really stupid to fire the gun with that many people around, especially since there was no felony,” Ivey said. “You’re only supposed to use deadly force when somebody’s life is in danger, and certainly not for any kind of misdemeanor issue. And at the time they were trying to get her out of the car, I’m not even sure there was a criminal offense that had been committed.”
But Rachel VanLandingham, a national security law professor at Southwestern Law School, said while she did not think the officer’s use of force was justified, the issue can be more complicated in court, where juries are asked to consider the officer’s reasoning.
“It seems like she backed up and was trying to go around him, right? That she wasn’t trying to hit him. … But those standards still have to be — they have to reasonably believe that she poses an imminent threat of serious bodily harm or death,” VanLandingham said. “It’s from his perspective, the shooter’s perspective.”
“It’s not as clear-cut of an analysis, I think, as people want to make it out,” she added.
“It’s really based on this concept of reasonableness, reasonableness from that officer’s perspective, which is why in so many of these excessive police force cases that the balance goes legally to that officer,” VanLandingham said.
Trump administration officials have made clear they view the incident as a matter of self-defense.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said the firing officer was hit by the car, a detail difficult to ascertain from the video. She maintained the officer had followed his training, while arguing a car can be a deadly weapon, going so far as to suggest Macklin Good was committing an “act of domestic terrorism.”
“The ICE officer, fearing for his life and the other officers around him and the safety of the public, fired defensive shots,” Noem continued. “He used his training to save his own life and that of his colleagues.”
The ICE officer could attempt to mount a similar defense if he’s prosecuted, contending his actions fell within his official duties and were neither unreasonable nor unlawful. His attorneys could also attempt to move the prosecution to federal court and claim he is immune from prosecution.
But a future state criminal prosecution may already face hurdles.
Minnesota’s Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) was assisting the FBI in its investigation, but the federal agency changed course, revoking the BCA’s access to case materials and forcing the state agency to withdraw from the probe.
Osler described the move as “unusual,” saying he’s not aware of a similar situation where federal authorities cut the state out of an investigation altogether. It could pose problems for local prosecutors, especially as several witnesses to the incident are federal employees.
“Going forward, there’s basically three things that can happen,” he said. “The state can wait for the FBI report. They can ask the state authorities for a report based on the evidence that they do have. Or they could make a charging decision without a police report.”
Drew Evans, superintendent of the BCA, said the agency can’t meet the investigative standards required by Minnesota law without complete access to the evidence, witnesses and information collected. He said he expects the FBI to share its full file with the appropriate prosecuting authorities at both the state and federal levels.
The Hennepin County attorney’s office said in a statement that it began exploring options to ensure a state-level investigation can continue “immediately” after the FBI rescinded its cooperation agreement with the BCA.
“If the FBI is the sole investigative agency, the State will not receive the investigative findings, and our community may never learn about its contents,” Moriarty said.
The FBI declined to comment when asked about the case files.
The Hill asked the Minnesota attorney general’s office if the change affects its plans.
If a criminal prosecution does not come to fruition, Macklin Good’s family would face an uphill battle in any pursuit of civil damages.
ICE officers are generally covered by qualified immunity, which shields law enforcement and other government officials from liability in civil lawsuits unless legal challengers can show the defendant violated a “clearly established” statutory or constitutional right.
VanLandingham said she fears the shooting will be used by the administration to erode policing standards used during peacetime that generally prohibit officers from firing first.
“I’m afraid there’s going to be a growing — this is contributing to a narrative by the administration that we have war in our city streets,” she said
“Just policy and socially, domestically, you know, concerns aside, legally, if we’re at war, our government agents can use lethal force first versus last, based on who someone is.”