Sieben Edmunds Miller Shares Legal Analysis, Makes the Case for a Minnesota-Based Investigation

MINNEAPOLIS, Jan. 9, 2026 /PRNewswire/ -- Minnesota criminal defense attorney Kevin Sieben today released a legal analysis calling for a full state investigation and potential state charges arising from the recent ICE shooting in Minneapolis.

Please read our expanded blog on the recent ICE incident in Minneapolis: https://siebenedmunds.com/recent-ice-shooting/

As a Minnesota criminal defense law firm, we work daily with the practical realities of how criminal laws are enforced and how law enforcement decisions affect real people and real cases. That experience gives us a working understanding of how the system operates when it is functioning properly and how quickly confidence in the system erodes when conclusions are reached before the facts are fully developed.

As defenders of due process, we believe justice must be pursued transparently and locally, through careful investigation rather than political narrative. When a death occurs in Minnesota, Minnesota law applies. The state has the authority to investigate and, if warranted, charge violations of its criminal laws.

The recent ICE shooting in Minneapolis raises serious questions that deserve careful scrutiny by Minnesota authorities. Public trust depends on a process that is independent, fact-driven, and insulated from outside political pressure.

According to Sieben, "Minnesota authorities should not only investigate this incident, but should bring state charges if the evidence establishes that a crime has been committed."

Minnesota Has Jurisdiction. Full Stop.

Federal employment does not place someone beyond the reach of state criminal law. States are independent sovereign entities distinct from the federal government, with their own criminal authority. If conduct occurs in Minnesota and violates Minnesota law, Minnesota law enforcement has authority to investigate and, if appropriate, prosecute it. That principle applies equally to private citizens, local officers, and federal agents.

In practice, it is common for the same conduct to be examined by both state and federal authorities. Each system applies its own statutes, standards, and accountability mechanisms. One does not cancel out the other. The existence of a federal investigation does not eliminate the state's responsibility or authority to act.

Immunity Has Limits

Law enforcement officers are granted certain legal protections when they act within the scope of their lawful duties. Those protections exist for good reason. Officers must be able to make difficult decisions without fear that every judgment call will later be second-guessed in court.

But immunity is not absolute. It does not extend to conduct that falls outside the scope of lawful authority or conduct that is unjustified under the circumstances. Whether an officer acted within those boundaries is a factual question. It depends on what actually occurred, what force was used, what threat existed, and whether the response was reasonable under the law.

Those questions cannot be answered through press conferences or political statements. They can only be answered through a thorough, independent investigation that examines evidence, witnesses, and objective facts. Immunity is not a shield against investigation. It is a legal determination that follows one.

Minnesota Has Done This Before

Minnesota has already confronted the question of whether a law enforcement officer can be charged under state law for conduct that occurred in the course of duty. Derek Chauvin was investigated, charged, and prosecuted in Minnesota state court for a Minnesota crime arising out of actions taken while he was acting as a police officer. That case was not about politics or job titles. It was about whether the conduct violated Minnesota law. Notably, Chauvin was also charged with federal crimes arising from the same conduct.

The same principle applies here. The fact that an individual was acting in a federal capacity does not alter the state's authority to investigate whether a state crime occurred. Accountability under state law does not depend on the uniform worn or the agency involved. It depends on the facts and the law.

Local Accountability Matters More Than National Narratives

In moments like this, leadership matters. Minnesota's elected officials and justice institutions are closest to the facts, the witnesses, and the community affected by this incident. They are best positioned to ensure that any investigation is thorough, credible, and trusted by the public. Governor Walz's public call for a careful, fact-driven investigation reflects the kind of restraint and leadership these moments require.

When national officials publicly characterize this incident as "domestic terrorism" within hours of a shooting, before a full investigation has occurred, it signals a conclusion rather than a question. That framing, echoed by senior federal leadership, risks shaping the outcome before the facts are established. Once those narratives take hold nationally, they exert pressure on investigators, distort public understanding, and make it harder for evidence to be evaluated independently rather than politically.

What undermines that process is the rush by national political figures to frame the outcome before an investigation has been completed. Public statements that label conduct, assign motives, or declare justification before the evidence has been gathered do not promote accountability or public confidence. They create pressure on investigators, distort public understanding, and risk turning a legal inquiry into a political exercise.

According to Samuel Edmunds, Partner at Sieben Edmunds Miller, "When political leaders rush to label a case before the facts are established, they undermine public confidence and the integrity of the investigation." He added, "Accountability requires restraint, evidence, and independent review, not political framing." 

Serious incidents involving loss of life deserve restraint and patience. The goal is not to protect agencies or advance political narratives. The goal is to determine what happened, apply the law evenly, and allow the facts to lead wherever they may.

What Should Happen Next

Minnesota officials should insist on full participation in this investigation and make clear that state authority will not be sidelined. That means access to evidence, transparency in decision-making, and a commitment to follow the facts wherever they lead, even if that outcome is uncomfortable or politically inconvenient.

A credible investigation protects everyone. It protects the public's confidence in the justice system, law enforcement officers who acted lawfully, and the integrity of the legal process itself. What undermines confidence is the appearance that conclusions are being reached before the work has been done.

As criminal defense lawyers, we are not interested in outcomes driven by politics or public pressure. We are interested in lawful process, independent investigation, and accountability under the law. Minnesota has the tools, the authority, and the responsibility to handle this case properly. It should do so.

Contact:
 Kevin Sieben
 Criminal Defense Attorney
 Sieben Edmunds Miller PLLC
 651-994-6744
 [email protected]
 www.siebenedmunds.com

SOURCE Sieben Edmunds Miller