(WASHINGTON, D.C.) — A core defense strategy in removal cases triggered by high-risk immigration operations is to preserve constitutional claims early and, where supported by evidence, pursue a motion to suppress or terminate proceedings based on egregious Fourth Amendment or due-process violations.
That strategy is drawing renewed attention after the reported fatal shooting of Renée Nicole Macklin Good, a 37-year-old U.S. citizen and mother of three, during an ICE operation in Minneapolis on January 7, 2026. Her brothers, Luke Ganger and Brent (also reported as Brett) Ganger, testified on February 3, 2026, asking Congress to pursue accountability and “harm stopping legislation” aimed at preventing deaths and protecting constitutional rights.
This article explains (1) what is publicly known versus disputed, (2) how Capitol Hill forums differ from court proceedings, and (3) how immigrants and mixed-status families can think about evidence preservation and defenses when an enforcement encounter becomes the starting point for immigration court.
1) Overview: Incident, testimony, and immediate context
Public reporting describes Good’s death as occurring while she was in her vehicle during an ICE operation described as targeting suspected immigration fraud. Federal officials publicly defended the involved officer, ICE deportation officer Jonathan Ross, while other accounts point to video footage that has prompted public debate about what happened in the moments before shots were fired.
On Capitol Hill, Good’s brothers testified at a public forum to urge legislative and oversight action. Their stated goal was accountability and prevention, not litigation.
At a high level, the core facts that appear widely reported are: a fatal shooting occurred; federal officials and family representatives sharply disagree about the threat narrative; and some form of video is said to exist. Those points matter because they shape which records may exist, how quickly they can disappear, and what a later court or investigator can reliably review.
2) Testimony details and forum context (and how to verify claims)
The testimony occurred at a bicameral public forum hosted by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA). The stated topic focused on “violent use of force” in immigration operations and related constitutional-rights concerns.
Speakers urged congressional action and referenced broader incidents and allegations involving DHS components.
Why congressional forums matter—but are not court
Congressional forums can build a public record, increase oversight pressure, and generate requests for investigations. They also can shape policy proposals, funding conditions, and reporting mandates.
But they are not criminal trials, civil trials, or immigration court hearings. The rules of evidence are different, and testimony may be framed for public accountability rather than meeting litigation burdens.
For readers trying to verify statements, the most reliable approach is to seek primary records, including:
- Event video (official recordings and original-source uploads, if available).
- Prepared remarks and any official transcript or committee/public-forum materials.
- Press releases from the hosting offices.
- DHS/ICE statements and clarifying releases.
- Court filings if litigation is initiated (complaints, motions, preservation letters if attached).
Government starting points may include Congress’s official bill and record repository and DHS OIG materials. FOIA basics are centralized at the federal FOIA portal.
3) Incident background and officer profile: what use-of-force reviews examine
Reporting describes the operation as tied to suspected immigration fraud. It also describes two competing narratives: an agency account portraying an imminent threat to agents, and a contested narrative referencing video that some observers say contradicts that assessment.
When shootings occur during enforcement actions, investigators and courts typically focus less on broad labels and more on sequence and perception.
Use-of-force reviews commonly examine:
- The timeline: approach, commands, and movement.
- Distance and line of sight.
- Whether clear commands were given and understood.
- The vehicle’s movement and whether it created an imminent threat.
- Body-worn camera footage (if used), dash cam, nearby surveillance, and third-party video.
- Witness statements, including from non-agent bystanders.
- Physical evidence, including ballistics, scene measurements, and vehicle damage.
Public reporting also describes Ross as a longtime federal officer (including Border Patrol/ICE experience) and a military veteran, plus a prior on-duty injury incident. In a standard review, such background may be discussed only insofar as it relates to training, assignments, and any prior incidents cited in public reporting.
Background does not resolve disputed facts in any single event, but it can affect what training records and operational plans exist.
4) Family legal actions and preservation requests: what “preservation” means
Public reporting indicates the family—through attorney Antonio Romanucci—is pursuing civil litigation against federal agents and has sent preservation requests.
Civil claims in federal-force incidents
Civil lawsuits in these cases often seek damages and accountability. They can take months or years.
Separate tracks may include agency reviews, inspector general inquiries, and (depending on jurisdictional facts) federal or state investigations.
What preservation requests do
A preservation request is a written demand that an agency or party retain potentially relevant evidence. It is time-sensitive because routine retention schedules may lead to overwriting or disposal.
Preservation letters do not guarantee disclosure, but they can be important if later litigation alleges spoliation.
Evidence categories frequently at issue include:
- Video: bodycam, dashcam, nearby surveillance, phone video, and dispatch recordings.
- Vehicle data: event data recorders, GPS, telematics, and airbag-module logs.
- Communications: texts, emails, messaging apps, radio traffic, and operational chat logs.
- Medical and injury records: including EMS, hospital records, and agency injury reports.
- Autopsy materials: reports, photographs, toxicology, chain-of-custody documentation.
- Operational documents: plans, risk assessments, and after-action reports.
Preservation is different from:
- FOIA (a public-record request process with exemptions and delays).
- Discovery (court-supervised evidence exchange after a lawsuit is filed and proceeds).
Warning: Do not alter phones, videos, or metadata to “clean up” files. Changes can undermine credibility and may create legal risk. Preserve originals and share copies with counsel.
This is also where healthcare intersects with enforcement incidents. Medical records may be central evidence. They are protected by privacy rules, but they can be obtained through lawful process and are often critical for timelines and causation.
5) Broader developments and potential consequences (oversight pathways)
Public reporting has described multiple ICE shooting incidents since late 2025, which typically increases scrutiny of tactics, training, and accountability systems. Where aggregated incidents are alleged, oversight attention often rises at several levels.
Institutional pathways that may follow include:
- DHS internal reviews and ICE review processes.
- DHS Office of Inspector General inquiries.
- Civil rights investigations within DHS structures, depending on allegations.
- Congressional hearings, letters, and reporting mandates tied to appropriations.
- Policy and training revisions, including guidance on vehicle encounters.
Public demonstrations and media coverage can influence the pace and visibility of oversight. They do not determine legal outcomes. Outcomes depend on evidence, jurisdiction, and the applicable legal standards.
Deadline Watch: FOIA deadlines and appeal windows are short and technical once an agency responds. If you plan to pursue records, consult counsel quickly so deadlines are not missed.
6) Defense strategy in immigration court: suppression, termination, and parallel relief
When an enforcement encounter leads to removal proceedings, the defense is usually two-track: (1) challenge how evidence was obtained; and (2) pursue any available immigration relief.
A) Motion to suppress / terminate (when facts support it)
The Supreme Court held that the exclusionary rule generally does not apply in removal proceedings, with limited exceptions. See INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032 (1984). In practice, suppression may still be argued where violations are egregious or where evidence is unreliable or obtained in a way that undermines fairness.
In immigration court, respondents commonly rely on:
- Matter of Barcenas, 19 I&N Dec. 609 (BIA 1988) (framework for suppression motions and the need for a prima facie showing).
- Matter of Garcia-Flores, 17 I&N Dec. 325 (BIA 1980) (regulatory violations and prejudice analysis).
Procedurally, motions practice is governed by EOIR regulations, including 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23 (Immigration Judge motions) and related rules. Removal hearing burdens are addressed in 8 C.F.R. § 1240.8.
What this means : if ICE obtained identity statements, documents, or admissions through coercion, unlawful entry, or severe misconduct, a lawyer may argue those materials should be excluded—or that proceedings should be terminated—depending on circuit law and facts.
B) Parallel relief that may protect families
For mixed-status families, defense counsel also screens for:
- Adjustment of status through a qualifying family petition (often under INA § 245), if the person is eligible and admissible.
- Cancellation of removal for certain nonpermanent residents under INA § 240A(b), which requires, among other elements, 10 years’ physical presence, good moral character, and “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to a qualifying U.S. citizen or LPR relative.
- Asylum, withholding, or CAT when fear-based claims exist (e.g., INA § 208 for asylum).
Healthcare facts can be pivotal in cancellation cases, because hardship arguments often center on a child’s disability, chronic illness, or treatment access. That requires careful medical documentation and expert framing.
Warning: Do not assume “family ties” alone prevent removal. Many forms of relief have strict eligibility rules and discretionary components.
Evidence typically needed for the defense strategy
- Detailed declaration of the encounter.
- Any video, photos, audio, dispatch logs, and witness contact information.
- Medical records documenting injuries or stress impacts, where relevant.
- Proof of coercion or lack of consent for searches.
- For family-based and hardship relief: birth certificates, marriage records, proof of custody and support.
- Medical records and clinician letters; school records, IEPs, therapy notes, and insurance coverage proof.
- Country-condition evidence when relevant to fear claims.
Factors that strengthen or weaken cases
Strengtheners include a clear, consistent timeline supported by independent records, original files with intact metadata, prompt preservation requests, organized documentation, and credible witnesses not tied to the parties.
Weakeners include missing originals, edited clips, inconsistent accounts, criminal history or conduct triggering inadmissibility, and prior immigration fraud findings if supported by evidence, which can affect relief and credibility.
Bars and disqualifiers to flag early
Depending on relief sought, common barriers include certain criminal convictions, including aggravated felonies (context-specific); fraud or willful misrepresentation issues (often under INA § 212(a)(6)(C)); and prior removal orders or unlawful reentry bars.
Because bars are technical and circuit-sensitive, qualified counsel should review them before filings.
Realistic expectations
Suppression and termination are not routine wins. Many cases proceed with contested evidence. Still, well-documented constitutional claims can shape outcomes, narrow allegations, improve bond arguments, and support prosecutorial discretion requests.
Results vary widely by jurisdiction and facts.
Why attorney representation is critical
These cases often involve parallel tracks: immigration court, FOIA, civil litigation, and oversight inquiries. Each track has different deadlines and risks.
A qualified immigration attorney can coordinate with civil counsel, protect against self-incrimination, and choose filings that do not unintentionally harm relief eligibility. EOIR’s court system information is available at EOIR.
Additional Legal Resources
- EOIR (Immigration Court system): EOIR
- AILA Lawyer Referral
⚖️ Legal Disclaimer: This article provides general information about immigration law and is not legal advice. Immigration cases are highly fact-specific, and laws vary by jurisdiction. Consult a qualified immigration attorney for advice about your specific situation.
