Yesterday afternoon, an ICE agent killed a woman in the middle of the street in Minneapolis. As of Tuesday, January 8, 2026, no one has been held accountable. What’s worse, the administration is claiming the slain woman participated in an "act of domestic terrorism" before being shot, despite there being no evidence of said act.
Jen is joined by Jenn Borchetta, ACLU’s Deputy Project Director on Policing, to talk through what is and is not typical of an investigation into excessive use of force from an officer. The two also discuss the exceedingly aggressive actions ICE are taking, the importance of gathering the facts, and the urgent need to keep the public informed.
If you are eyewitness to an incident you find disturbing, make sure to write it down as quickly as possible. If you feel safe doing so, filming the event is also a good tool of accountability. Then, reach out to your local ACLU office.
Jenn Borchetta is a deputy project director in the ACLU Criminal Law Reform Project, focusing on policing litigation and integrated advocacy. In this position, Jenn develops and leads legal strategies to challenge police abuse, strengthen individual rights and liberties against police authority, and advance a paradigm of public safety where policing is minimal and all communities are safe, free, and equal.
The following transcript has been edited for formatting.
Jen Rubin
Hi, this is Jen Rubin, Editor-in-Chief of The Contrarian. We have all seen the horrible video of an ICE agent shooting an unarmed young mother in the face, killing her while she was in her vehicle. I encourage all of you to watch that video, and there are multiple angles, and judge for yourself. Listen to the bystanders who witnessed them themselves, and make up your own mind as to whether the president and the head of Homeland Security are lying, to the American people. But to discuss the use of force, what the rules are, not the specifics of this case, I am thrilled to have Jen Borchetta, who is the Deputy Project Director on Policing for the Criminal Law Reform Project for the ACLU. Welcome, Jen, it’s so nice to have you.
Jenn Borchetta
Thank you, it’s very nice to talk to you and your viewers.
Jen Rubin
I understand you can’t speak to the specifics of this case. The ACLU is not currently involved. There may be a time when the ACLU is involved, and so I won’t ask you the specifics of this case, but I do want to talk to you, because you’re an expert on the subject, about the use of force. The federal government itself has use-of-force requirements that they’ve imposed on all federal law enforcement, including ICE. And then there are independent legal standards, state and federal. Take us through each of these, and tell us what People can and cannot do, using the badge of, federal authority.
Jenn Borchetta
We have to start with the fact that officers are required to consider all of the facts and circumstances, and only use force when it’s appropriate and necessary. And the Supreme Court, just last spring, unanimously reaffirmed this long-standing legal principle, which arises under the Fourth Amendment, which is our right to be protected against unreasonable searches and seizures. And so, when… officers, government actors like ICE agents, are considering whether to use force. They have to consider all of the facts in that situation, and only use force that would be appropriate to real needs in that moment.
And that includes considerations like, is there a severe crime at issue? Is there an imminent threat to the safety of either the government actors or to people in the public? Have the government actors given warning? About the use of their force, and allowed someone a moment to react to that or not. All of these things are critically important to whether force is appropriate and permissible.
Jen Rubin
What do the federal rules, stepping aside from, either judge-created or statutory rules at a state or federal level, but what does the federal government tell its law officials, law enforcement officials, about shooting people in vehicles, or even shooting tires of vehicles? Are there rules that they must follow?
Jenn Borchetta
I’m not familiar with the rules that ICE has been given, especially under this administration, for the use of force. What I will say is that, generally, law enforcement are trained very specifically on when they can use force, what needs to be considered, steps they need to take to de-escalate, which is required both generally under the law, but also under law enforcement best practices, because de-escalation is important to protecting both government actors on the scene and everyone else who’s present. So these are things that you would expect To be incorporated into any training, that is, sufficient to protect both law enforcement actors and the public. In, in operations.
Jen Rubin
Normally, when there is an officer-involved shooting and a death, what we normally have is that that individual is taken off duty, and while the investigation proceeds. That seems like the first step in determining whether the investigation is serious, frankly. If you say, well, go back out there, keep doing your job, you have to wonder whether the investigation is actually genuine.
Jenn Borchetta
Well, I think removing, removing an officer after an incident like this is important in part to protecting evidence and information about what happened. And that’s important because all of us, when we’ve been through something intense. Something traumatic that can affect our memories, and so taking someone out of continued operations can be a way to help ensure that you’re protecting everyone’s memory and information about that moment.
Jen Rubin
Got it. Now, there are federal laws against killing people, there are state laws against killing people. What do—and I’m not asking you to necessarily opine on the specifics of Minnesota law—but in general, what do they say about self-defense?
Jenn Borchetta
Well, there are differing laws across the country about how it might be considered whether an officer is using self-defense, which is different from what someone who is not an officer would a different doctrine than would apply for other people. And it’s similar to what generally, although I can’t speak to specific Minnesota law. Generally, the laws look at the similar standards to, whether the force was excessive to begin with, as I talked about at the top. So, it’s questions about, whether officers de-escalated, whether they took steps
To whether there were steps available to them that were less serious. Whether, what the person was doing in that moment that suggested Or didn’t suggest that there was some risk. real risk to the officers. It can’t be speculative risk, it can’t be, you know, it has to be based in fact of what is happening in that moment. And that’s all incredibly important. Both those laws and those standards are incredibly important, not only to protecting the safety of all involved, but also to ensuring when we’re dealing with law enforcement actors, that we have protections that keep our democracy healthy. Because if we’re all afraid that there’s a real risk when we leave our homes that we’ll be shot by government actors, we’re not leaving our homes. And so these kinds of rules and all these facts that have to be considered before officers are using force. Are really important to our democracy itself.
Jen Rubin
Absolutely. Now, the standard for whether you think you need to act in self-defense, is a kind of reasonable man or reasonable woman standard. How does that work in the context of police shootings? Can the officer just say, oh, I thought I was in danger, and that’s the end of the story, or is there a further investigation?
Jenn Borchetta
Again, without speaking to the specifics of Minnesota state law, what I’ll say is know that an officer can’t just unilaterally say, I was afraid, if that’s untethered from the facts. the officer’s actions need to be tied to what was reasonable in that moment, and that turns on what, in fact, was a risk and what wasn’t. And their personal subjective fear It’s not the question, it’s whether the facts suggest that the fear was an appropriate basis for the force used, because again, it’s not just a binary. Can force be used or not? It’s, can the force that they used be appropriate to those circumstances. And so when you’re talking about the use of deadly force, the facts making that force appropriate need to be even more solid.
Jen Rubin
Understood. Now, in an investigation like this, when a federal official is killed, and again, we’re not going to talk specifics to this case, but let’s say somewhere in the United States, a federal law enforcement, issue, officer, rather, is not killed, but kills someone else. Is it common to have, both the federal and state authorities to investigate? How does this usually work out when there’s deadly use of force by for example, the FBI, or ICE, or Border Control, any of those organizations?
Jenn Borchetta
I don’t know that there’s a typical response, and I think that it does depend on who’s in charge politically and of these different, bodies. There can often be, though, investigations that are parallel, both state investigations or federal investigations. There can be investigations where it’s one or the other. You know, often the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division does investigations into the use of deadly force by law enforcement actors. And so there are different ways that progress, and I don’t think one is necessarily, To the exclusion of the other, we’ve seen it in both ways.
Jen Rubin
Got it. So, how do these investigations, pan out? What would be a normal investigation, and what would be the degree of transparency that the public should expect when they have an investigation like this?
Jenn Borchetta
That also often can depend on the people who are in charge of the investigation and decisions they make along the way. Generally, when there are investigations by government actors, though, there tend to be limits on transparency. This is something, we think there shouldn’t be as many limits on transparency as there often are. And that we often advocate, both the ACLU advocates for this, and we encourage Communities affected by these investigations to ask for transparency, because it is really critically important. That the public, who’s affected by the consequences of this conduct, and the consequences of a lack of accountability, which can encourage future misconduct. That they be kept informed and be given timely and, and, critical information about the investigatory process, about what’s a component of that investigation, and other pieces of the investigation. That’s really important. Generally, but often you don’t see much transparency.
Jen Rubin
In these sorts of cases, where it appears you have multiple video views, and it’s taken in broad daylight, and there are multiple, multiple witnesses. You usually don’t have this many eyes, if you will, on an event. What’s a normal way of proceeding to make sure that the law enforcement folks who are investigating protect the evidence, secure statements, make sure that everyone who has Some knowledge of it, is allowed to tell their side of it. What would you expect if it was a sincere, normal investigation?
Jenn Borchettta
If it’s sincere and serious, which unfortunately is not always the case, you would expect that a law enforcement investigation into a use of deadly force Would include ensuring that evidence is maintained, that it’s secured, to the extent possible, that it’s gathered, to the extent possible, and, And there are often internal entities, and I don’t know this for ICE, but there are often internal entities that are responsible for taking action once something like this happens, and ensuring that they’re interviewing people. Those interviews, internal interviews, those interviews should be done in a way, that is not, unfairly deferential to law enforcement, or leading, of law enforcement actors.
And you would expect that there is a sincere effort to collect what’s available, from the public in a way that’s not intimidating to the public. All of these things, though, I don’t have the information or background to know what might be existing in ICE, especially under this administration. What I will say is there are certainly flags that would concern me about whether there’d be any kind of investigation that would At all, let alone one that would be, Sufficient, because, we’ve seen, not with respect to this incidence, but just taking a broader look more broadly from this administration, there’s been a lot of encouragement of aggression. Of use of force, of characterizing, communities as enemies, and all of those things, unfortunately, are consistent with a law enforcement agency that is encouraging. the use of force in an improper way. And unfortunately, we also know that when law enforcement leadership encourage use of force, and at the same time. cast vast members of the community as enemies, we have seen that that leads to the misuse of force. And so those factors would make me, unfortunately, not optimistic about internal investigation.
Jen Rubin
Before this incident—so let’s talk before Minneapolis—we had a number of shootings, and even, this is not the first death, either. What can you tell us about the way ICE has reacted to those incidents? Have they come clean? Did they make allegations they later had to retract? What’s been the pattern you’ve seen so far before Minnesota?
Jenn Borchetta
What we’ve seen before, Minnesota is the leadership of this administration and of ICE actors Only condoning, what appears to be misconduct, and excusing too fast abuses that we’ve seen. And again, we’ve seen… quick. Characterization of the members of the public involved as enemies in some way, or exaggeration of the threat that they posed in those moments. I don’t think there’s been one set of comments from the administration. I think there is some nuance in comments that we’ve seen from different actors, but on the balance, what we’re seeing is condemnation in response to sometimes very scary uses of force by ICE, And that we’ve seen comments that are quick to excuse and to criminalize, or demonize the person who is subject to force.
Jen Rubin
Absolutely. There was an incident in Chicago, for example, in which, there was a shooting, and the ICE, actually, I don’t recall whether it was ICE or whether it was Border Control, said this woman was ramming with her car. She was, a… acting in an aggressive fashion. suggested charges would be brought… those charges were later dropped. What does that incident tell you about the how ICE is behaving out in American cities?
Jenn Borchetta
We are seeing from that and from other incidences that ICE is being very aggressive, that they are escalating in encounters, that they are using force needlessly. We have seen examples many times under this administration of ICE actors who are Putting themselves and members of the community in the way of harm, and that they are not using skills that we know law enforcement across the country usually train officers to use to de-escalate instances and to ensure safety of everyone who’s involved. And I think from instances like the one, the example that you’ve used from Chicago. Again, we also see, that there is, from ICE and from this administration, often a demonization of people who are involved and affected by, a use of force, in a way that’s not tied to the facts.
Jen Rubin
Fair enough. Two other factors that I think people should look at. One is there’s been a lot of concern about training. How much, these people, they’ve tried to hire a slew of people, and they have shortchanged in some respect, some would say. Lessened the training requirement, shrunk the amount of time between someone getting hired and put on the streets with deadly force. And we have also seen, everyone has seen it out on bus stops, on television, these ads that portray ICE as highly militarized, as fighting enemies, as bulked up, they look like military ads, quite frankly. What do training and sort of the milieu of hiring and advertising marketing tell you about where ICE is in terms of the use of force?
Jenn Borchetta
The training and videos that we see trying for ICE right now trying to get, to fill its ranks are deeply concerning and are a warning sign to us that ICE, abuse of authority, and violence is going to increase. We know this because we know from studying law enforcement and from being involved in law enforcement actions that have resulted in use of force improperly before. That when law enforcement agencies cast themselves as against members of the public, when they cast themselves as militarized, when they use that kind of rhetoric of us versus this group in the public.
We know from facts and history in the United States that leads predictably To misuse of force and over-aggression against people of the public that can be avoided. And law enforcement should see themselves as protectors of the public, all of the public, and also should see themselves as protectors of our fundamental rights in this country, and that requires training, it requires caution, it requires carefully preparing law enforcement actors for engaging with members in a public in a way that protects our safety and our rights. And the speed and aggressiveness and militarization in the messages that we’re seeing from ICE In filling its ranks, all raise a flag that we’re in danger.
Jen Rubin
And it also requires leadership, of course. When you treat people like animals, and you refer to them as animals, and you exploit images of them behind bars at CECOT and other places, that inevitably sends a message to officers down the line. If you are someone in Minnesota, and let’s first of all take people who think they know something about this. What should they do?
Jenn Borchetta
Who think they know something in terms of what?
Jen Rubin
Evidence, that they were there, or they saw something, they have a video, they have concrete information, not just they have opinions, but they have facts.
Jenn Borchetta
Right. Anyone who has facts, who has observed something about an encounter with law enforcement, use of force in this one or otherwise, what they should do is, as soon as possible, it’s advisable to write it down. To make notes to yourself. Memory fades for all of us quickly and can be influenced by things we’re seeing in other places. So, write it down. To the extent that people, know lawyers locally or advocates locally that they can reach out to, and share that information, that’s also something that they can do. They can look for ways that their local governments might offer for them to provide that information, and they can reach out to those places. They should find a place to. hold that information that’s protected. From being in some way affected. So, emailing it to yourself so that you have a timestamp and a note of when you made that record might be a good practice. Keeping the information where other people can’t edit it, for example, could be important as well. So these are some ways that people can, both record and protect the information that they have observed.
Jen Rubin
I don’t, again, want to talk about this incident, but in prior incidents, have public witnesses been Advised, or well-advised, to talk to state and local officials or federal officials in these incidents.
Jenn Borchetta
It does depend on the situation. I think people need to use judgment in which government officials they’re speaking to, and it has to be based in part on their comfort, and also in part on where they have trust. And also, people should think about, in reaching out to the government, the government then has your information, and so you should think about whether, you are okay with any risks that that might expose you to. Unfortunately, with this federal government, we have to think about, whether they could share with other agencies, for example. And, so that is something, unfortunately, people have to think about. I think that depends on a person’s circumstances. And should be a decision that they make themselves based on their own comfort.
Jen Rubin
If people don’t have a lawyer, can they go to a local ACLU office and talk to lawyers there? Is the ACLU, expert, I ask, in a leading question, in intake of information and asking the kind of questions that are going to be helpful in an investigation?
Jenn Borchetta
Certainly folks should reach out to or look for their local ACLU’s information. There are ACLUs across the country, and there are ACLU folks on the ground in every state, and often the ACLU that’s in your local jurisdiction will have information available on their websites about the best ways to reach out to them that can differ from, between ACLU offices, so take a look for that. ACLU is on social media, often lifting up ways to get in touch with us in particular, and people should keep an eye out for those ways to get in touch with the ACLU.
Jen Rubin
Last question, let’s back up just a moment. What should people in the community do to express… there’s a lot of anger, there’s a lot of, upset. We saw very peaceful vigils. What is the advice you would give generically to a community after one of these incidents?
Jenn Borchetta
Well, one is to find community, that that’s important in these moments. And, if you are finding community, if you want to raise your voice, participate in protests, the ACLU provides Know Your Rights information. I would encourage folks to look for that. We’ve been uplifting it. We always do, after incidences like this. And generally, I would say, that there’s a lot of nuanced information that’s important to people, especially if law enforcement show up, that I’d encourage people to look at that information, and at the same time, keep in mind that you have a right to express your voice. And that you should always be aware of your own safety, and you should be making decisions about how to stay safe, when you are sharing your voice in these moments.
Jen Rubin
Jen, you’ve been so helpful and informative, we really thank you. As our contrarians know, we talk a lot to and about the ACLU, which, defends our civil liberties, against discrimination, against police violence, against First Amendment, violations, and their work is more important than ever. And one of the barriers between tyranny, is civil society, of which, the ACLU is a critical part. So thank you so much, Jen. We’ll look forward to speaking to you soon.
Jenn Borchetta
Thank you so much.
