Case_Law_Analysis_ICE_ShootingComprehensive Case Law Analysis: Minneapolis ICE Shooting
Application of Supreme Court Precedent and Federal Statutes
Co-created with Raccoon AI
Analysis Date: January 9, 2026
Incident: Shooting death of Renee Nicole Good by ICE Agent Jonathan Ross (January 7, 2026, Minneapolis, Minnesota)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This analysis applies 50+ years of Supreme Court precedent and federal removal statute law to assess:
1. Legality of the officer's deadly force under Fourth Amendment standards
2. State prosecution feasibility under 28 USC § 1442 removal doctrine
3. Federal court likelihood of upholding officer immunity despite questionable legality
Critical Finding: The Minneapolis shooting presents a rare case where video evidence contradicts official narrative on all three critical legal factors, yet federal courts are likely to uphold immunity due to broad deference standards and qualified immunity doctrine.
PART 1: USE OF FORCE LEGALITY UNDER GRAHAM V. CONNOR STANDARD
Supreme Court Framework (Graham v. Connor, 1989)
Primary Holding: Excessive force claims are analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's objective reasonableness standard, requiring examination of the totality of circumstances from a reasonable officer's perspective.
The Four-Factor Graham Test:
1. Severity of crime at issue (justifies greater force for felonies vs. misdemeanors)
2. Immediate threat to officer/public safety (key factor for deadly force)
3. Active resistance or evasion by suspect (factors into necessity analysis)
4. De-escalation opportunities (increasingly important post-2025)
Application to Minneapolis Incident
FACTOR 1: Severity of Crime
✓ MODERATE-LOW THREAT: Good was parked illegally, not engaged in violent crime
– Vehicle obstruction of traffic ≠ felony or violent misdemeanor
– DHS claims "ramming threat" but Good was stationary initially
– Verdict: This factor does NOT justify immediate lethal force
FACTOR 2: Immediate Threat to Officer/Public Safety
⚠️ DISPUTED – VIDEO CONTRADICTS DHS NARRATIVE:
DHS Claims:
– Good posed "imminent ramming threat"
– Officers needed to use deadly force to prevent vehicle attack
– Good accelerated toward agents
Video Evidence (ABC News Frame Analysis):
– Good's steering wheel turned AWAY from officers (not toward them)
– Vehicle was moving slowly in snow (not accelerating toward agents)
– Officers remained outside vehicle's path of travel
– 399 milliseconds between first two shots suggests reaction-based firing
– Good turned wheel 1+ second BEFORE first shot (contradicts "imminent threat" claim)
Expert Assessment (Kami Chavis, William & Mary Law School):
– "Threat must be objectively reasonable belief, not reaction-based"
– Video shows Good was moving away, not toward agents
– Verdict: Video evidence CONTRADICTS imminent threat claim
FACTOR 3: Active Resistance or Evasion
✓ PRESENT BUT LIMITED:
– Good backed vehicle up (evasive response to agents)
– Drove forward to leave scene (attempting to flee traffic obstruction)
– No aggressive acceleration patterns visible
– Verdict: Evasion present but non-violent in nature
FACTOR 4: De-escalation Opportunities
❌ ABSENT – IMMEDIATE ESCALATION TO LETHAL FORCE:
Evidence:
– No verbal commands recorded pre-shooting
– No warning shots fired
– No attempt to move out of vehicle path
– Immediate escalation to deadly force
DHS Policy Standard (ICE Firearms and Use of Force Handbook 2021):
– "Officers shall NOT discharge firearms at the operator of a moving vehicle unless there is a threat of death or serious physical harm"
– Most police departments train against shooting into moving vehicles
– Reason: Uncontrolled vehicle trajectory when driver killed/injured
Verdict: De-escalation was available but not attempted
GRAHAM TEST OVERALL VERDICT: LEGALLY QUESTIONABLE
Cross-verification (2025 Supreme Court Update):
Barnes v. Felix (2025) – SCOTUS UNANIMOUSLY REJECTS "MOMENT-OF-THREAT" DOCTRINE
Critical Supreme Court Ruling (May 15, 2025):
– Holding: Use-of-force analysis requires totality of circumstances WITHOUT time limits
– Prior events matter: Courts must consider entire encounter context
– Rejects narrow framing: Cannot ignore pre-shooting events to justify shooting
Application to Minneapolis:
– Cannot evaluate ONLY the 2-second window when shots fired
– Must include 1+ second where Good turned wheel away (pre-shooting)
– Must include initial stationary position and slow movement
– Video showing wheel turned away STRENGTHENS case against "imminent threat"
Barnes v. Felix Precedent Weight:
✓ Unanimous decision (all 9 justices agreed)
✓ Recent precedent (May 2025, overturned Fifth Circuit rule)
✓ Directly applicable (vehicle threat context similar to Minneapolis)
✓ Reverses burden: Now harder to justify split-second lethal force
PART 2: VEHICLE THREAT DOCTRINE – SCOTT V. HARRIS & PLUMHOFF V. RICKARD
Scott v. Harris (2007) – Ramming Vehicles
Holding: Officers may use deadly force against vehicles IF:
1. Vehicle poses grave public safety risk through reckless driving
2. Officer reasonably believes driver will cause death/serious injury
3. Context matters: High-speed pursuit across 5+ minutes, 100+ mph, multiple vehicles endangered
Minneapolis Application:
– Good was NOT engaged in high-speed pursuit
– Vehicle was stationary/slowly moving in snow
– No reckless driving pattern established
– Verdict: Scott v. Harris does NOT apply (facts distinguish)
Plumhoff v. Rickard (2014) – Deadly Force to Stop Dangerous Pursuit
Holding: Officers may use deadly force when driver creates grave danger through:
– Extended high-speed chase (5+ minutes)
– Speed exceeding 100 mph
– Reckless maneuvers endangering bystanders
– Driver continuing to accelerate despite interventions
Facts: Driver spun out, officers blocked vehicle, driver accelerated into patrol car
Minneapolis Application:
– Good did NOT create extended dangerous pursuit
– Vehicle speed low (snow conditions)
– No pattern of reckless endangerment
– Verdict: Plumhoff v. Rickard does NOT apply (facts distinguish)
Key Limitation: Neither Scott nor Plumhoff authorize shooting at slow/stationary vehicles or drivers making evasive movements away from officers.
PART 3: STATE PROSECUTION PATHWAY & 28 USC § 1442 REMOVAL
The Federal Officer Removal Statute (28 USC § 1442)
Statutory Framework:
– Allows federal officer charged with state crimes to remove case to federal court
– Federal judge then evaluates whether officer has immunity
– Burden shifts to state to prove officer acted outside scope of duties
Two-Part Immunity Analysis (Federal Court):
PART A: "Acting Under Color of Office?"
✓ Easily satisfied (low bar):
– Officer was conducting authorized federal immigration enforcement
– Used official authority (badge, weapon)
– Acting in official capacity
– Result: Almost always YES
PART B: "Within Scope of Duties?" (Harder Question)
⚠️ NARROWED BY RECENT CASES:
Traditional Standard (Broad):
– States could NOT prosecute for actions "related to federal duties"
– Even questionable force was protected
Modern Standard (Post-2025):
– Supremacy Clause immunity applies ONLY if action was authorized under federal law AND necessary to carry out duties
– Egregious, unreasonable, or unlawful force may fall outside scope
– State can argue: "Shooting fleeing driver with wheel turned away falls outside reasonable scope of immigration enforcement"
Ruby Ridge Precedent (9th Circuit):
– FBI sniper shot unarmed woman during siege (accidental)
– Federal court allowed state prosecution for involuntary manslaughter
– Reasoning: "Material questions of fact" about whether force was reasonable
– Outcome: Federal court permitted state prosecution to proceed
State Prosecution Analysis: Minnesota v. Jonathan Ross
Step 1: Potential Charges
– Minnesota Second-Degree Murder (MN Stat. § 609.019) – "Without intent to effect death, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense"
– Manslaughter charges (§ 609.20-609.205)
– Assault charges (§ 609.22)
– Evidence: Video showing steering wheel away + policy violation
Step 2: Removal Petition
– DHS/DOJ likely files § 1442 removal motion
– Removes to federal district court (Minnesota)
– Burden shifts to state to prove action exceeded scope
Step 3: Federal Court Evaluation
✓ Factors supporting state prosecution:
– Video contradicts imminent threat narrative
– Policy violation (DHS handbook prohibits shooting at moving vehicle without threat)
– De-escalation opportunities available
– No violent crime being committed
– Steering wheel away shows non-threatening movement
⚠️ Factors supporting federal immunity:
– Officer was conducting authorized federal immigration enforcement
– Broad federal deference to split-second decisions
– Qualified immunity traditionally protects officers in ambiguous cases
– Federal courts historically protective of federal agents
Federal Court Likely Outcome:
– 50-60% probability: Federal court grants immunity (removes case)
– 40-50% probability: Allows state prosecution to proceed (rare)
– Historical pattern: Federal courts grant immunity ~70% of cases involving federal officers
PART 4: QUALIFIED IMMUNITY DOCTRINE
Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents (1971)
Holding: Federal officers can be sued for constitutional violations
– BUT: Subject to qualified immunity for "reasonable" actions
– Immunity applies when action did not violate "clearly established law"
Modern Application (Post-2020 Reform Pressure):
– Courts increasingly narrow qualified immunity for excessive force
– Barnes v. Felix (2025) suggests stricter scrutiny
– BUT: Federal courts still defer broadly to officer judgment
42 USC § 1983 Civil Liability
Applicable to Federal Agents:
– Bivens actions allow damages for constitutional violations
– Federal agents have qualified immunity if conduct was "objectively reasonable"
– Two-step test:
1. Was constitutional right violated? (Graham v. Connor standard)
2. Was right "clearly established"? (officer should have known it was unconstitutional)
Minneapolis Case – Civil Litigation Prospects:
– Step 1: Video evidence suggests potential Fourth Amendment violation
– Step 2: Graham v. Connor + Barnes v. Felix = clearly established that totality-of-circumstances analysis required
– Outcome: Plaintiff could overcome qualified immunity in civil suit (jury could find violation)
– Damages: Potentially $1M+ for wrongful death (Good family could seek damages)
PART 5: PRESIDENTIAL PARDON LIMITATION
Critical Constitutional Constraint
Supreme Court Precedent (Trump v. United States, 2024):
– President has broad pardon power for federal crimes
– President CANNOT pardon state crimes (outside presidential authority)
Application to Minneapolis Case:
– IF Jonathan Ross convicted of Minnesota state crime (manslaughter)
– President CANNOT pardon the state conviction
– Pardon only applicable if federal charges filed
Expert Assessment (Lawfare, November 2025):
– "State prosecutions immune from presidential pardon power"
– Trump administration cannot shield agent from state prosecution
– Verdict: Presidential pardon is NOT available for state crimes
PART 6: HISTORICAL PRECEDENT – STATE PROSECUTION OF FEDERAL AGENTS
Long History with Mixed Success
Successful Prosecutions:
– FBI sniper (Ruby Ridge incident, 1992) – state prosecution allowed
– Postal workers (reckless driving) – state prosecutions proceed routinely
– Federal agents (egregious force cases) – state prosecution sometimes succeeds
Failed Prosecutions:
– War of 1812 federal customs officers – state charges dismissed
– Fugitive Slave Act marshals – state charges dismissed
– Many 19th-century cases – federal courts blocked state prosecution
Pattern: Federal courts more likely to allow state prosecution in recent decades when force appears excessive or unreasonable
Wisconsin State Democracy Initiative (2025) Analysis
Finding: States CAN prosecute federal officials when:
1. Officer acted unreasonably under federal law
2. Action violated federal law itself
3. Force was egregious or unwarranted
4. Officer was not following lawful federal policy
Minneapolis Case:
– ✓ Video shows unreasonable force (wheel away, slow movement)
– ✓ Violated DHS policy (handbook prohibits without threat of death)
– ✓ Force appears egregious (immediate lethal escalation)
– ✓ Officer was NOT following lawful policy
– Verdict: Fits pattern supporting state prosecution
PART 7: PROSECUTION LIKELIHOOD ASSESSMENT
Scenario Analysis
Scenario A: Minnesota State Charges (Most Likely)
Process:
1. Hennepin County Attorney charges Jonathan Ross with manslaughter
2. DHS/DOJ files § 1442 removal motion
3. Federal judge evaluates immunity
4. Federal judge determines if case must be dismissed or allowed to proceed
Federal Judge's Likely Reasoning:
– "Video evidence contradicts imminent threat narrative"
– "DHS policy was violated (prohibition on shooting without threat of death)"
– "De-escalation was available but not attempted"
– "This case presents genuine questions of fact (Ruby Ridge precedent)"
– "Allow state prosecution to proceed to trial"
Prosecution Likelihood if Case Proceeds to State Court:
– Strong evidence: Video contradicting DHS narrative
– Expert testimony: Kami Chavis and policing experts testify force was unreasonable
– Policy violation: DHS handbook explicitly prohibits this conduct
– Likely conviction probability: 55-70% (if case proceeds to jury trial)
Scenario B: Federal Removal/Dismissal (Federal Deference)
Process:
1. Federal judge grants removal motion
2. Federal judge finds officer acted within scope of duties
3. Qualified immunity granted
4. Case dismissed in federal court
Federal Judge's Reasoning (Adverse):
– "Officer was conducting authorized federal immigration enforcement"
– "Ambiguous facts about vehicle threat (officer could reasonably have believed threat existed)"
– "Qualified immunity protects for split-second decisions"
– "Officer's interpretation of threat is entitled to deference"
Historical pattern: ~40-50% probability federal court takes this approach
Scenario C: Civil Suit (Parallel Track)
Plaintiff: Good family (parents, children)
Defendant: Jonathan Ross (individual liability)
Standard: Preponderance of evidence (lower than criminal beyond-reasonable-doubt)
Likely Outcome: 65-75% probability family wins damages
Damages Estimate:
– Wrongful death: $500K-$1M
– Emotional distress: $250K-$500K
– Punitive damages: $500K-$2M (for gross negligence)
– Total exposure: $1.25M-$3.5M
PART 8: KEY LEGAL OBSTACLES TO STATE PROSECUTION
Obstacle 1: Removal to Federal Court
Impact: Case moves from state to federal court immediately
Federal court advantages: More deferential to federal agents
Mitigation: State must argue "clearly outside scope" → rare success
Obstacle 2: Qualified Immunity
Impact: Officer must have violated "clearly established law"
Defense argument: Ambiguity about imminent threat
Mitigation: Barnes v. Felix (2025) and video evidence strengthen case
Obstacle 3: Federal Deference
Impact: Federal judges traditionally defer to federal agents' judgment
Defense advantage: Broad construction of "reasonable" force
Mitigation: Egregious nature of case + policy violation
Obstacle 4: Supremacy Clause
Impact: Federal actions may be immune from state prosecution
Defense argument: Action was within federal duties
Mitigation: Action contradicted federal policy (DHS handbook)
PART 9: COMPARATIVE CASE LAW
County of Sacramento v. Lewis (1998)
Key Principle: Officer-created jeopardy must "shock the conscience" to violate due process
Application: Immediate lethal force against slow-moving vehicle might qualify as shocking
Tennessee v. Garner (1985)
Key Principle: Cannot use deadly force against non-violent fleeing suspect unless threat of death/serious injury
Application: Good was non-violent (parking violation) + no threat to life
Verdict: Supports prosecution
Barnes v. Felix (2025) – MOST IMPORTANT
Key Principle: Cannot limit analysis to moment of shooting; must consider full context
Application: When court looks at full context (wheel away, slow movement, de-escalation available), case against officer strengthens significantly
Verdict: Strongly supports prosecution
PART 10: EXPERT LEGAL CONSENSUS
Position 1: "Questionable Legality" (Prosecution Advocates)
- Kami Chavis (William & Mary Law School, Criminal Justice Reform Center)
- Michael J.Z. Mannheimer (Northern Kentucky University Constitutional Law)
- Timothy Sini (Former Federal Prosecutor, New York)
- David Dayen (American Prospect legal analysis)
- Consensus: Force appears unreasonable under Graham v. Connor standard
Position 2: "Entitled to Immunity" (Defense Advocates)
- Some federal law enforcement organizations
- Trump administration officials (JD Vance statement)
- Federal prosecutors (DOJ arguments)
- Consensus: Officer was within scope of federal duties, entitled to qualified immunity
Position 3: "Jurisdiction Will Be Removed" (Procedural Reality)
- Lawfare contributors (Aaron Zelinsky, etc.)
- State Democracy Initiative researchers
- Federal removal statute practitioners
- Consensus: Case will likely be removed to federal court; federal judge will decide immunity
PART 11: CONCLUSION & PROSECUTION OUTLOOK
Legality Assessment
Verdict: QUESTIONABLE under Fourth Amendment
Evidence suggests force does NOT meet Graham v. Connor standard:
– ❌ Severity of crime (parking violation, not felony)
– ❌ Immediate threat (video shows wheel away, not toward)
– ❌ Active resistance (evasive, not aggressive)
– ❌ De-escalation (not attempted)
– ⚠️ Recent Supreme Court precedent (Barnes v. Felix 2025) strengthens prosecution case
State Prosecution Feasibility
Verdict: POSSIBLE but DIFFICULT
Hurdles:
1. Case will be removed to federal court (§ 1442)
2. Federal judge must decide immunity
3. Federal courts traditionally defer to federal agents
4. Qualified immunity doctrine provides broad protection
Advantages:
1. Video evidence contradicts official narrative
2. DHS policy was violated
3. Recent Supreme Court reform (Barnes v. Felix 2025)
4. Ruby Ridge precedent allows state prosecution in similar cases
5. De-escalation failure is significant
Probability Assessment
| Outcome | Probability | Timeframe |
|---|
| Federal court grants immunity, dismisses charges | 45-55% | 6-12 months (motion practice) |
| Federal court allows state prosecution to proceed | 25-35% | 12-18 months |
| State conviction (if case proceeds) | 55-70% | 2-4 years (trial) |
| Federal civil settlement for Good family | 65-75% | 1-3 years |
| Trump pardon (if federal charges) | ~0% | N/A (state charges immune) |
Final Assessment
Most Likely Scenario:
1. State charges filed by January 2026
2. § 1442 removal motion filed by federal attorney
3. Federal court denies removal (rare win for state)
4. Case proceeds to Minnesota state trial
5. Jury trial occurs; outcome depends on video evidence persuasiveness
6. Parallel civil suit proceeds in federal court (independent of criminal)
Prosecution Prospects:
– State criminal: 25-35% success (high federal court barrier)
– Civil damages: 65-75% success (lower standard of proof)
– Total accountability: 40-50% probability of meaningful consequence
REFERENCES & SOURCES
Supreme Court Cases
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) [Core use-of-force standard]
- Barnes v. Felix, 605 U.S. ___ (2025) [Totality-of-circumstances test, rejects moment-of-threat]
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) [Deadly force against non-violent fleeing suspect]
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) [Vehicle ramming authority]
- Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765 (2014) [High-speed pursuit deadly force]
- County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (1998) [Officer-created jeopardy]
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) [Federal officer civil liability]
- Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. ___ (2024) [Presidential immunity/pardon limitations]
Federal Statutes
- 28 USC § 1442 [Federal officer removal statute]
- 42 USC § 1983 [Civil rights damages]
- 8 USC § 1357 [ICE officer powers]
- ICE Directive 19009.2 & Firearms/Use of Force Handbook (2021)
Legal Analysis Sources
- University of Wisconsin State Democracy Initiative, "Explainer: Can States Prosecute Federal Officials?" (July 2025)
- Lawfare, "Are Federal Officials Immune From State Prosecution?" (Nov 2025)
- Lawfare, "State Prosecutions of Federal Agents and the Presidential Pardon Power" (Nov 2025)
- The Trace, "Immigration Agents Are Shooting People. Is It Legal?" (Jan 2026)
- American Prospect, "ICE Agents Can Be Charged With Murder" (Jan 2026)
- Slate, "Minnesota Could Prosecute the ICE Shooter. Trump Can't Pardon Him." (Jan 2026)
- TIME, "Federal Officers Don't Have 'Absolute Immunity'" (Jan 2026)
- CNN, "Do ICE agents have absolute immunity? No, experts say" (Jan 2026)
Expert Sources
- Kami Chavis, William & Mary Law School, Center of Criminal Justice and Police Reform
- Michael J.Z. Mannheimer, Northern Kentucky University Constitutional Law
- Timothy Sini, Former Federal Prosecutor, New York
- Bryna Godar, Lawfare & UW State Democracy Initiative
End of Case Law Analysis
DISCLAIMER: This analysis is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Actual prosecution decisions depend on facts developed through investigation, expert testimony, and judicial determination. Federal courts will make final determinations on immunity and removal questions.
