About That TRO Regarding Evidence From the Pretti Shooting… – RedState

As we continue to see the aftermath of the shooting of Alex Pretti by U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) agents in Minneapolis, an interesting court ruling was issued Monday on the matter, namely the dissolution of a previously issued Temporary Restraining Order (TRO).

The shooting occurred on January 24, 2026. Later that night, Judge Eric Tostrud of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota initiated a TRO against various Trump administration officials at the request of the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) and the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office. The TRO granted the plaintiffs only one of the requested relief: that federal authorities not destroy or alter any evidence.

Although, on its face, the order appeared to be a “victory” for the plaintiffs, as I noted at the time, the order essentially required the feds to do what they should be doing anyway and, as the name suggests, was “temporary.”

READ MORE: Judge blocks destruction of evidence in Border Patrol shooting as Minnesota sues DHS

Today, Judge Tostrud issued an order dissolving the old TRO. In an 18-page opinion and order, Tostrud found that defendants maintained formal evidence preservation policies under the Federal Records Act and agency protocols, and that testimony from several federal officials showed that evidence — such as body-worn camera footage and physical objects — was preserved in accordance with established procedures. Further, he concluded that there was no clear evidence that defendants would destroy or improperly alter evidence if the TRO was lifted.

Some highlights from Tostrud’s latest decision:

The federal agents’ abbreviated on-site investigation seems best understood as the result, not of what the investigating agents did or did not do, but of a volatile situation and reasonable security concerns. Plaintiffs neither suggest nor identify evidence demonstrating that Defendants are responsible for their failure to prevent the invasion of the premises. In other words, although it seems likely that evidence was lost or spoliated at the scene of Mr. Pretti’s shooting, the record here shows that the loss or spoliation more likely resulted from urgent circumstances, not the defendants’ substandard evidence collection or preservation activities.

…

The plaintiffs filed evidence of public statements made by officials of the federal executive branch and the Department of Homeland Security, ECF No. 21, whose ICE/HSI branch was initially responsible for the federal investigation into the shooting of Mr. Pretti, Zito Decl. ¶ 11. In Plaintiffs’ view, these statements show that these officials and the Department of Homeland Security decided on the day Mr. Pretti was killed that the federal agents who shot him had done nothing wrong. For example, Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff for policy and homeland security, described Mr. Pretti in a January 24 article as a “domestic terrorist.” [who] attempted to assassinate federal law enforcement. ECF No. 21 ¶ 2; ECF n° 21-1 on p. 2. The same day, the Department of Homeland Security posted on its X account that the incident “looks like a situation in which an individual wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement.” ECF No. 21 ¶ 3; ECF n° 21-2, p. 2. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem reportedly said essentially the same thing. ECF No. 21 ¶ 5; ECF n° 21-4 on p. 4. These statements are disturbing. They reflect not a genuine interest in knowing the truth, but snap judgments informed by speculation and motivated by political partisanship. However, to make a difference here, plaintiffs must demonstrate that the statements are probative of defendants’ intent to destroy or despoil evidence related to the investigation of Mr. Pretti’s shooting. I conclude that the connection is too remote for the statements to justify an ongoing preservation order. No evidence or information suggests that Deputy Chief of Staff Miller or Secretary Noem would have been directly involved in the investigation when HSI was leading it, especially since either would have been responsible for the destruction or spoliation of evidence. On this issue, these conclusions would depend on speculation. Regardless, as previously noted, it has been widely reported that the FBI is now leading the investigation, thereby removing these officials from any involvement in the matter. The statements and reports cited by Plaintiffs do not support the continuing relief they seek.

…

Other considerations mitigate my level of concern regarding the continued existence and continued integrity of the evidence in defendants’ possession. Putting this case aside, Mr. Pretti’s shooting alone almost certainly triggered the defendants’ duty to preserve evidence that might be relevant to any civil suit or excessive force proceeding brought on behalf of his survivors, and in that proceeding, failure to preserve or spoliation would result in significant, perhaps decisive, consequences. Zito Decl. ¶¶ 6-7; Egerton Decl. ¶ 7.

…

In favor of Plaintiffs, the terms of the temporary restraining order do not differ materially from Defendants’ preservation policies. This seems obvious. On the other hand, a pending preservation order – and the contempt power that comes with it – would overlap not only with defendants’ preservation policies, but also with any investigative measures that might alter evidence. Examinations and tests often leave evidence in a different state after testing than before. Legitimate concerns about the compliance of these types of investigative measures with a preservation order could reasonably prompt defendants to seek a judicial order. That, in turn, would inject the court into investigating defendants, not just preserving evidence. Burden considerations favor neither party.

The order also takes into account concerns raised by the plaintiffs regarding the handling of Pretti’s firearm after the incident. He notes that this is not a decision regarding the merits of their allegations, nor a determination of if/when state entities will have access to the evidence. With this decision, Tostrud simply determines that plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that a preservation order regarding evidence is warranted after weighing all required factors.

Thus, the TRO is disbanded and the investigation moves forward at a rapid pace.

Editor’s note: Do you like RedState’s conservative reporting that attacks the radical left and the woke media? Support our work so we can continue to bring you the truth.

Join RedState VIP and use promo code STRUGGLE to benefit from 60% off your VIP subscription!