Estimated reading time: 20 minutes

Comprehensive 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

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.