(This Jan 25 story has been repeated with no changes to the text)
By Jack Queen, Jan Wolfe and Blake Brittain
Jan 25 (Reuters) – U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents shot and killed two U.S. citizens in separate enforcement actions in Minneapolis this month as part of President Donald Trump’s hardline immigration crackdown.
Local officials have disputed administration officials’ claims that the shootings were acts of self-defense, citing bystander video that appears to contradict the government’s accounts.
Here is a look at the potential legal repercussions for the officers.
WHAT HAPPENED?
An ICE officer shot 37-year-old Renee Good in her car on January 7. The Department of Homeland Security said the officer had fired “defensive shots” after Good attempted to run him over, though online videos of the shooting verified by Reuters cast doubt on the government’s narrative.
ICE agents shot 37-year-old Alex Pretti in a separate incident on January 24. DHS said Pretti approached with a handgun and violently resisted attempts to disarm him, though bystander videos verified by Reuters show Pretti – whom Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara said carried a handgun lawfully – holding a phone as he tries to help protesters whom agents pushed to the ground.
WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY?
Minnesota’s use-of-force law permits state police to use deadly force only if reasonable officers would believe doing so was necessary to protect themselves, or others, from death or serious harm.
Federal law has a similar standard, permitting use of deadly force when a reasonable officer would have probable cause to believe a person posed an immediate threat of death or serious injury.
COULD THE OFFICERS BE PROSECUTED?
Federal agents are generally immune from state prosecution for actions taken as part of their official duties. Immunity only applies when an officer’s actions were authorized under federal law and were necessary and proper.
If Minnesota charged the agents, they could seek to move the case to federal court and argue they are immune from prosecution. To prevail, the state would have to show their actions were outside of their official duties or were objectively unreasonable or clearly unlawful. If a judge ruled an officer was immune, the case would be dismissed and the state would not be able to charge him again.
COULD FEDERAL PROSECUTORS CHARGE THE OFFICERS?
Federal prosecutors can charge law enforcement officers for fatal shootings, but the bar is very high and charges are rare. Prosecutors would need to show an officer knew his conduct was unlawful or acted with reckless disregard for the constitutional limits of his authority, which is difficult to prove in court. The Trump administration has so far defended the officers’ actions.
WHAT DEFENSES WOULD THE ICE AGENTS HAVE?
In addition to federal immunity, the agents could argue that their actions were reasonable under the Constitution, that they acted in self-defense or that they did not act with intent to harm or kill the victims.
COULD THE VICTIMS’ FAMILIES SUE FOR CIVIL DAMAGES?
Federal officers are immune from civil lawsuits unless their conduct clearly violated a clearly established constitutional right. This legal standard, known as qualified immunity, has become a highly effective tool for shielding police officers accused of using excessive force, a series of Reuters investigative stories found in 2020.
However, victims can also sue the federal government for compensation when its employees cause financial or bodily injury in the course of their work. This is covered by the Federal Tort Claims Act of 1946, an exception to a legal doctrine called sovereign immunity that usually shields the federal government from lawsuits.
In an FTCA case, a plaintiff typically alleges a government employee acted negligently or wrongfully. The statute would allow family members of someone killed by ICE to seek compensation for wrongful death.
But while the FTCA opens a rare avenue for a lawsuit against the federal government, these claims face limits and obstacles, and legal experts generally consider the law a weak mechanism for addressing government officials’ misconduct.
(Reporting by Blake Brittain in Washington; Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi and Deepa Babington)
Comments