While we continue to see fallout from the shooting of Alex Pretti by U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) agents in Minneapolis, there was an interesting court ruling on Monday related to it, namely, the dissolution of a previously entered temporary restraining order (TRO).
The shooting happened on January 24, 2026. Later that night, Judge Eric Tostrud of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota entered a TRO against various Trump administration officials at the behest of the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) and the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office. The TRO granted the plaintiffs only one of the items of relief requested: that federal authorities not destroy or alter any evidence.
While, at first blush, the order appeared to be a “win” for the plaintiffs, as I noted at the time, the order essentially just required federal authorities to do what they should be doing anyway, and, as indicated by its name, was “temporary.”
READ MORE: Judge Blocks Evidence Destruction in Border Patrol Shooting As Minnesota Sues DHS
Now, Judge Tostrud has entered an order dissolving the previous TRO. In an 18-page opinion and order, Tostrud found that defendants maintain formal evidence-preservation policies under the Federal Records Act and agency protocols, and that multiple federal officials’ testimony showed evidence — such as body-worn camera footage and physical items — was being preserved in accordance with established procedures. Further, he found that there was no clear evidence that defendants would destroy or improperly alter evidence if the TRO were lifted.
Some highlights from Tostrud’s latest ruling:
The federal officers’ abbreviated on-scene investigation seems best understood as resulting, not from anything investigating officers did or did not do, but from a volatile situation and reasonable safety concerns. Plaintiffs do not suggest or identify evidence showing Defendants are to blame for failing to prevent the scene from being overrun. In other words, though it appears likely that evidence was lost or spoliated at the scene of Mr. Pretti’s shooting, the record here shows the loss or spoliation more likely resulted from exigent circumstances, not from Defendants’ substandard evidence-gathering or preservation activities.
…
Plaintiffs filed evidence of public statements made by federal executive-branch officials and the Department of Homeland Security, ECF No. 21, whose ICE/HSI branch was tasked initially with the federal investigation into Mr. Pretti’s shooting, Zito Decl. ¶ 11. In Plaintiffs’ view, these statements show that these officials and the Department of Homeland Security decided the day Mr. Pretti was killed that the federal officers who shot him did nothing wrong. For example, Stephen Miller, White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Homeland Security Advisor, described Mr. Pretti in a January 24 X post as a “domestic terrorist [who] tried to assassinate federal law enforcement.” ECF No. 21 ¶ 2; ECF No. 21-1 at 2. That same day, the Department of Homeland Security posted on its X account that the incident “looks like a situation where an individual wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement.” ECF No. 21 ¶ 3; ECF No. 21-2 at 2. Kristi Noem, Secretary of Homeland Security, was reported to have said essentially the same thing. ECF No. 21 ¶ 5; ECF No. 21-4 at 4. These statements are troubling. They reflect, not a genuine interest in learning the truth, but snap judgments informed by speculation and motivated by political partisanship. To make a difference here, however, Plaintiffs must show the statements are probative of Defendants’ intent to destroy or spoliate evidence related to the investigation of Mr. Pretti’s shooting. I conclude that connection is too remote for the statements to justify an ongoing preservation order. No evidence or information suggested Deputy Chief of Staff Miller or Secretary Noem would have been directly involved in the investigation when HSI was leading it, much more that either of them would have been responsible for the destruction or spoliation of evidence. On this record, those conclusions would depend on speculation. Regardless, as noted, it has been widely reported that the FBI is now leading the investigation, further removing these officials from involvement in it. The statements and reporting Plaintiffs cite do not justify the continuing relief they seek.
…
Other considerations dampen my level of concern regarding the continuing existence and ongoing integrity of the evidence in Defendants’ possession. Putting this case aside, Mr. Pretti’s shooting alone almost certainly triggered Defendants’ duty to preserve evidence that may be relevant to any excessive-force civil suit or proceeding brought on his or his survivors’ behalf, and in that proceeding, non-preservation or spoliation would pose significant, perhaps dispositive consequences….And Defendants’ declarations show that Defendants implemented reasonably prompt measures to comply with the temporary restraining order. Zito Decl. ¶¶ 6–7; Egerton Decl. ¶ 7.
…
Favoring Plaintiffs, the temporary restraining order’s terms are not meaningfully different from Defendants’ preservation policies. That seems obvious. On the other hand, an ongoing preservation order—and the contempt power that accompanies it—would overlay, not just Defendants’ preservation polices, but any investigative measures that might alter evidence. Examination and testing often leave evidence in a different condition after testing than it was before. Legitimate concerns over whether those types of investigative measures comply with a preservation order might reasonably prompt Defendants to seek judicial direction. That, in turn, would inject the court into Defendants’ investigation, not just their evidence preservation. Burden considerations do not favor either side.
The order also acknowledges concerns raised by the plaintiffs regarding the post-incident handling of Pretti’s firearm. It notes that this isn’t a decision regarding the merits of their claims, nor a determination as to whether/when the state entities will have access to the evidence. With this decision, Tostrud is merely determining that plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that a preservation order regarding the evidence is warranted when balancing all the requisite factors.
So, the TRO is dissolved, and the investigation proceeds apace.
Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy RedState’s conservative reporting that takes on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.
Join RedState VIP and use the promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership!
