Protests are taking place in Minneapolis after ICE personnel were involved in a use-of-force incident while attempting to stop a vehicle that appeared to ram an ICE officer.
Multiple videos from different angles have been released showing the moment the incident occurred. Politicians have weighed in, including the Mayor of Minneapolis, who told ICE to “get the f…. out of Minneapolis,” comments likely to inflame rather than calm potential unrest.
As a backdrop, the Minneapolis Police Department has faced criticisms of excessive use of force following the killing of George Floyd. Those concerns were compounded by a 2023 Biden Administration DOJ report that said the Minneapolis Police Department violated residents’ civil rights by using “excessive force, including unjustified deadly force and unreasonable use of Tasers.”
In January 2025, the department entered into a consent decree with the Department of Justice to reform its use-of-force training and policy. This backdrop helps explain the tinderbox in the city around law-enforcement use-of-force incidents.
Incidents involving federal agencies increasingly leave local law enforcement leaders explaining actions they were not involved in and may not fully understand due to federal protocols.
| READ NEXT: The Minneapolis ICE shooting and the realities of vehicle assaults
Lack of understanding about use of force
Tensions are partly due to a lack of understanding by both the public and some politicians, who have inflamed the situation with misstatements about use of force — including comments by Governor Waltz, who said, “I’ve seen the video…. Don’t believe this propaganda machine. The state will ensure there is a full, fair and expeditious investigation to ensure accountability and justice.”
Comments made by the Governor and the Mayor demonstrate a lack of understanding of the laws governing law enforcement use of force, particularly for federal agencies, and what is and is not considered a reasonable use of force.
While some local jurisdictions, including Minneapolis, have attempted to restrict or curtail officers’ use of force because of local politics, federal agencies continue to follow Supreme Court precedent from Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989).
The Department of Justice’s Policy on Use of Force cites Graham, noting that assessing an officer’s use of force “requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officer or others, and whether [the suspect] is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight…. The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments — in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving — about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.” Id. at 396–97. The policy also states that “[t]he ‘reasonableness’ of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” Id. at 397. “[T]he question is whether the officers’ actions are ‘objectively reasonable’ in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them.”
Important points include reasonableness in light of all the facts and circumstances of an incident, what was known before and during the incident, and the reality that these decisions are split-second and must be viewed from that perspective, not with 20/20 hindsight.
The risks posed by vehicles
Vehicles present special challenges for law enforcement. Generally, an individual fleeing in a vehicle alone does not justify deadly force under most agency policies, unless the individual is continuing a violent crime (for example, acting as an active shooter) or the vehicle is used in a manner that threatens to kill or seriously injure an officer or another person — in which case the vehicle may be treated as a deadly weapon.
In the videos from the Minneapolis incident, ICE officers appear to tell the suspect driver to stop. Failing to do so is the first violation. The suspect then appears to turn the wheels of the car toward the ICE officer standing in front of the car and accelerates, propelling the car at the officer. As the car moves toward the officer, now posing a deadly threat, the ICE officer draws his weapon and fires while trying to move out of the way, striking the windshield. The car continues forward and appears to hit the officer in the leg.
The use-of-force portion of the incident lasts approximately two to three seconds, which aligns with Graham’s recognition that “the calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments.”
The investigation
Multiple investigations will review this incident: the Department of Justice, the FBI, the DHS Office of Inspector General (the parent department of ICE), and ICE’s internal review will all examine the incident for violations of policy and federal law, including possible civil-rights violations.
Each investigation will examine the fact pattern using information obtained from statements of those involved, witness testimony and the videos. Once investigators have that information, they will assess it based on Graham v. Connor factors and DOJ and DHS use-of-force policies.
Investigators will determine whether the incident was reasonable and lawful and whether the ICE officer acted consistently with the law and departmental policy. If they find violations, those findings can be used to hold the officer accountable. If they do not, the officer’s use of force may be ruled justified and no further administrative or criminal consequences may follow.
Regardless of the investigation’s outcome, the suspect’s family may file a federal Tort Claims Act and a federal lawsuit under Bivens v. Six Unknown Narcotics Agents, which permits suits against federal law enforcement officers. Such suits are civil actions against officers individually rather than the federal government. A civil lawsuit is a different process from a criminal trial: it can be filed for different reasons and follows different standards of proof.
Implications for local law enforcement
As ICE operations continue nationwide, local law enforcement leaders should assume that federal enforcement actions will affect community trust and perception, regardless of whether local agencies are directly involved. This is why cooperation is a key to successful federal-local partnerships and local policies prohibiting that cooperation could create a negative impact on a community.
Chiefs and sheriffs cannot control federal deployments, but they can work with the federal agencies. That work could include preparing their own department and the community with understanding the federal agency’s mission and how federal use-of-force law works including how investigations unfold and why federal standards may differ from local policy.
Proactive communication and education do not require endorsement of federal policy. They reflect an understanding that confusion — not intent — often drives public reaction after use-of-force incidents.
