shootings

Just a few hours after Border Patrol agents shot and killed Alex Pretti in Minneapolis, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security issued a statement that said, without evidence, that the 37-year-old registered nurse “wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement.”

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem would later imply Pretti had been “asked to show up and to continue to resist” by Minnesota’s governor.

Multiple videos from the scene immediately undercut those claims, and there has been no indication in the days since that Pretti threatened or planned to hurt law enforcement.

Several high-profile use-of-force incidents and arrests involving federal immigration agents have involved a similar cycle: Strident statements by Trump administration officials, soon contradicted by video footage or other evidence. Some law enforcement experts believe the repeated falsehoods are harming federal authorities both in the public eye and in the courtroom.

The top federal prosecutor in Los Angeles, Bill Essayli, has taken five defendants to trial on charges of assaulting officers — and his office has lost each case. Court records and a Times investigation show grand juries in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles have repeatedly rejected criminal filings from prosecutors in similar cases.

Despite the repeated judicial rebukes, administration officials have continued to push for criminal charges against people at protest scenes, including the controversial arrest of former CNN anchor Don Lemon on Friday.

“When top federal law enforcement leaders in the country push false narratives like this, it leads the public to question everything the government says going forward,” said Peter Carr, a former Justice Department spokesman in Washington who served in Democratic and Republican administrations. “You see that in how judges are reacting. You’re seeing that in how grand juries are reacting. You’re seeing that in how juries are reacting. That trust that has been built up over generations is gone.”

The credibility concerns played out in a downtown L.A. courtroom in September, when Border Patrol Cmdr. Greg Bovino served as the key witness in the assault trial of Brayan Ramos-Brito, who was accused of striking a Border Patrol agent during protests against immigration raids last summer. Video from the scene did not clearly capture the alleged attack, and Bovino was the only Border Patrol official who testified as an eyewitness.

Under questioning from federal public defender Cuauhtémoc Ortega, Bovino initially denied he had been disciplined by Border Patrol for calling undocumented immigrants “scum, filth and trash,” but later admitted he had received a reprimand. The jury came back with an acquittal after deliberating for about an hour. A juror who spoke to The Times outside court said Bovino’s testimony detailing his account of the alleged assault had “no impact” on their decision.

Last year, a Chicago judge ruled Bovino had “lied” in a deposition in a lawsuit over the way agents used force against protesters and journalists.

Spokespersons for Essayli and the Department of Homeland Security did not respond to requests for comment.

Essayli’s prosecutors have seen four additional cases involving allegations of assault on a federal officer end in acquittals, a nearly unheard of losing streak. A Pew study found fewer than 1% of federal criminal defendants were acquitted throughout the U.S. in 2022.

“The credibility of the prosecutor’s office and the credibility of the law enforcement officers testifying is key,” said Carley Palmer, a former federal prosecutor in L.A. who is now a partner at Halpern May Ybarra Gelberg. “That is especially true when the only witness to an event is a law enforcement officer.”

Jon Fleischman, a veteran Republican strategist and former spokesman for the Orange County Sheriff’s Department, said federal law enforcement officials have a responsibility to be the “mature, responsible player in the room” and remain as apolitical as possible. While he is a firm supporter of President Trump’s immigration agenda and said the Biden administration shares some blame for politicizing federal law enforcement, Noem’s handling of Pretti’s killing was problematic.

“What she said really doesn’t bear out in terms of what the facts that are available tell us,” Fleischman said. “I think it undermines the credibility of the justice system.”

Fleischman added that he feared some of the government’s recent missteps could dull approval of the platform that twice carried Trump to the White House.

“One of the main reasons I’ve been so enthusiastic about this president has been his stance on immigration issues,” he said. “When you see unforced errors by the home team that reduce public support for the president’s immigration agenda, it’s demoralizing.”

Another top Trump aide, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, also spoke out after the Minnesota shooting, calling Pretti an “assassin.”

Responding to a Times reporter on X, Miller said recent legal defeats in Los Angeles were the result of “mass judge and jury nullification, deep in blue territory, of slam-dunk assault cases.”

Accounts from inside L.A. courtrooms paint a different picture.

Carol Williams, a jury foreperson in the most recent assault trial which federal prosecutors lost in L.A., said the people she served with steered clear of conversations about the news or ICE raids.

“We didn’t talk about the protests in L.A. and we didn’t talk about the protests that were in Minnesota or anything,” Williams said. “People, I’m sure, probably keep up with the news, but in terms of bringing that into the jury room, we did not.”

Last year, Essayli and Tricia McLaughlin, the chief Homeland Security spokesperson, accused Carlitos Ricardo Parias of ramming immigration agents with his vehicle in South L.A., causing an agent to open fire. Video made public after the assault charges were dismissed last year, however, do not show the vehicle moving when the ICE agent opens fire, injuring Parias and a deputy U.S. marshal.

After being presented with the body-camera footage, McLaughlin reiterated the claim that Parias weaponized his vehicle and said officers “followed their training and fired defensive shots.”

McLaughlin also labeled Keith Porter Jr. — a Los Angeles man shot and killed by an off-duty ICE agent in Northridge on New Year’s Eve — an “active shooter” in initial media comments about the case, using a term that typically refers to a gunman attempting to kill multiple people.

Los Angeles police said nobody else was injured at the scene and have not used the “active shooter” wording in statements about the case.

Porter’s family and advocates have argued that force was not warranted. They said Porter was firing a gun in the air to celebrate the new year, behavior that is illegal and discouraged as dangerous by public officials.

A lawyer for the agent, Brian Palacios, has said there is evidence Porter shot at the agent.

Carr, the former Justice Department spokesman, said the Trump administration has broken with years of cautious norms around press statements that were designed to protect the credibility of federal law enforcement.

“That trust is eroded when they rush to push narratives before any real investigations take place,” he said.

In one case, the refusal of Homeland Security officials to back down may cause video footage that further undercuts their narrative to become public.

Last October, Marimar Martinez was shot five times by a Border Patrol agent in Chicago who alleged she was following him in a car and interfering with an operation. In a statement, McLaughlin accused Martinez of ramming a law enforcement vehicle while armed with a “semiautomatic weapon.”

Federal prosecutors in Chicago dropped the charges, but McLaughlin and others continued to describe Martinez as a “domestic terrorist.” As a result, Martinez filed a motion to revoke a protective order that has kept hidden video of the incident and other evidence.

“While the United States voluntarily dismissed its formal prosecution of her with prejudice … government officials continue to prosecute Ms. Martinez’s character in the court of public opinion,” the motion read.

On Monday, the New York Knicks’ Guerschon Yabusele, who also hails from France, made a strong statement on X calling for the US government to “stop operating this way”, external.

Wembanyama, 22, praised his countryman for speaking out but said Yabusele’s words “might have some price right now”, adding that “each and every one of us has to decide the price we’re willing to pay”.

When asked whether he feared repercussions for speaking on the topic, Wembanyama said “for sure”.

“I read the news and sometimes I’m asking very deep questions about my own life,” he said.

“But I’m conscious also that saying everything that’s on my mind would have a cost that’s too great for me right now. So, I’d rather not get into too many details.

“I know I’m a foreigner. I live in this country, and I have concerns for sure. I think there’s enough details there for now. If privately, we can discuss it maybe later, but not right now.”

SACRAMENTO — Amid a national uproar over the recent killing of a Minnesota man by immigration agents, the California Senate on Tuesday approved proposed legislation that would make it easier to sue law enforcement officials suspected of violating an individual’s constitutional rights.

Senate Bill 747 by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) creates a pathway for residents to take legal action against federal agents for the excessive use of force, unlawful home searches, interfering with a right to protest and other violations.

The bill, which cleared a Senate committee earlier this year, passed 30-10, along Democrat and Republican party lines.

Other states, including New York and Connecticut, are weighing similar legislation following widespread anger over the actions during the Trump administration’s immigration crackdowns and raids.

Existing laws already allow lawsuits against state and local law enforcement officials. But it is much harder to bring claims against a federal officers. Wiener said his bill would rectify those impediments.

Several state law enforcement agencies oppose the legislation, arguing it will also be used to sue local officers.

Tuesday’s vote follows the killing of 37-year-old Alex Pretti in Minneapolis on Saturday by federal officials, who tackled him to the ground, appeared to remove his holstered handgun and then shot Pretti several times in the back. During the debate on the state Senate floor Tuesday, several Democratic lawmakers called Pretti’s death an execution or murder.

Renee Good, a 37-year old mother of three, was also shot and killed by agents earlier this month in Minnesota in what federal officials have alleged was an act of self defense when she drove her vehicle toward an officer — an assertion under dispute.

The deaths, as well as the government’s insistence that immigration agents don’t require judicial warrants to enter homes, have outraged Democrats leaders, who accuse federal officers of flouting laws as they seek to deport thousands of undocumented immigrants.

Wiener, speaking to reporters before Tuesday’s vote, said that his legislation would reform the law to ensure that federal officials are held accountable for wrongdoing.

“Under current law, if a local or state officer shoots your mom…or publicly executes an ICU nurse, you can sue,” said Wiener. “That’s longstanding civil rights law, but in the current law, it’s almost impossible to file that same lawsuit against the federal agent who does the exact same thing.”

During Tuesday’s debate on the senate floor, Sen. Tony Strickland (R-Huntington Beach) acknowledged the “chaos” in Minnesota, but criticized the bill as being about immigration politics. He urged his colleagues to focus on the state’s affordability crisis, rather than challenges to the federal government.

“We need to start focusing on California-specific issues like gas, gas prices,” said Strickland.

Strickland’s comments drew a rebuke from Sen. Susan Rubio, (D-West Covina) who said the bill wasn’t about immigration, but “about the egregious violation of people’s rights. and the murders that we are witnessing.”

“This is about equal justice under the law,” said Rubio, a one-time undocumented citizen.

Wiener’s bill now heads to the state Assembly. The senator, who is running to fill the seat by outgoing Rep. Nancy Pelosi, told reporters that he didn’t know if Gov. Gavin Newsom supports his legislation or if he would sign it into law if it passes the full Legislature.

Wiener’s proposed law was put forth after George Retes Jr, a California security guard was detained following a July raid in Camarillo. Retes, a U.S. citizen and Army veteran, said he was held for three days without the ability to make a phone call or see an attorney.

Retes has accused Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin of spreading false information about him to justify his detention. The Homeland Security department said in a statement last year that Retes impeded its operation, which he denies.

Under U.S. Code Section 1983, a person can sue state and local officials who violate their constitutional rights. A state law also allows lawsuits against state and local officials for interfering with a person’s constitutional rights by force or threat.

When it comes to filing legal action against federal officials, lawsuits can be brought through the Bivens doctrine, which refers to the 1971 Supreme Court ruling in Bivens vs. Six Unknown Federal Agents that established that federal officials can be sued for monetary damages for constitutional violations.

But in recent decades, the Supreme Court has repeatedly restricted the ability to sue under Bivens. Some Supreme Court justices have also argued that it’s up to Congress to pass a statute that would allow federal officers to be sued when they violate the Constitution.

Those opposed to Wiener’s law include the Peace Officers Research Assn. of California, which represents more than 85,000 public safety members. The group argues it would result in more lawsuits against local and state officials, essentially creating multiple paths for litigation.

MINNEAPOLIS — A federal judge will hear arguments Monday on whether she should at least temporarily halt the immigration crackdown in Minnesota that has led to the fatal shootings of two people by government officers.

The state of Minnesota and the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul sued the Department of Homeland Security earlier this month, five days after Renee Good was shot by an Immigration and Customs officer. The shooting of Alex Pretti by a Border Patrol officer on Saturday has only added urgency to the case.

On Monday, President Trump said he is sending border czar Tom Homan to Minnesota. The president’s statement comes after Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Border Patrol Commander Gregory Bovino, who had become the public face of the administration’s crackdown, answered questions at news conferences over the weekend about Pretti’s shooting. Trump posted on social media that Homan will report directly to him.

Since the original court filing, the state and cities have substantially added to their original request in an effort to restore the order that existed before the Trump administration launched Operation Metro Surge in Minnesota on Dec. 1.

Democratic Minnesota Atty. Gen. Keith Ellison said he plans to attend.

The lawsuit asks U.S. District Judge Katherine Menendez to order a reduction in the number of federal law enforcement officers and agents in Minnesota back to the level before the surge and to limit the scope of the enforcement operation.

Justice Department attorneys have called the lawsuit “legally frivolous” and said “Minnesota wants a veto over federal law enforcement.” They asked the judge to reject the request or to at least stay her order pending an anticipated appeal.

Ellison said during a news conference Sunday that the lawsuit is needed because of “the unprecedented nature of this surge. It is a novel abuse of the Constitution that we’re looking at right now. No one can remember a time when we’ve seen something like this.”

It is unclear when the judge might rule.

The case has implications for other states that have been or could become targets of ramped-up federal immigration enforcement operations. Attorneys general from 19 states plus the District of Columbia, led by California, filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting Minnesota.

“If left unchecked, the federal government will no doubt be emboldened to continue its unlawful conduct in Minnesota and to repeat it elsewhere,” the attorneys general wrote.

Menendez ruled in a separate case on Jan. 16 that federal officers in Minnesota can’t detain or tear gas peaceful protesters who aren’t obstructing authorities, including people who follow and observe agents.

An appeals court temporarily suspended that ruling three days before Saturday’s shooting. But the plaintiffs in that case, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, asked the appeals court late Saturday for an emergency order lifting the stay in light of Pretti’s killing. The Justice Department argued in a reply filed Sunday that the stay should remain in place, calling the injunction unworkable and overly broad.

In yet another case, a different federal judge, Eric Tostrud, issued an order late Saturday blocking the Trump administration from “destroying or altering evidence” related to Saturday’s shooting. Ellison and Hennepin County Atty. Mary Moriarty asked for the order to try to preserve evidence collected by federal officials that state authorities have not yet been able to inspect. A hearing in that case is scheduled for Monday afternoon in federal court in St. Paul.

“The fact that anyone would ever think that an agent of the federal government might even think about doing such a thing was completely unforeseeable only a few weeks ago,” Ellison told reporters. “But now, this is what we have to do.”

Karnowski writes for the Associated Press.