The Unnecessary Killing of Renee Nicole Good

Overview

On Wednesday, January 7, 2026, Renee Nicole Good was shot and killed by ICE officer Jonathan Ross during a confrontation between ICE officers and observers.  Federal officials claimed she attempted to run over an agent. Local officials and eyewitness accounts dispute this. Video evidence has raised further questions. The Trump administration and DHS assert that Ross acted in self‑defense.  The Homeland Security Secretary described the incident as an act of “domestic terrorism,” a characterization rejected by Minnesota officials. Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey has sharply criticized the federal narrative, calling it misleading, and is demanding a state‑involved investigation.

The FBI took control of the investigation, reportedly blocking Minnesota’s Bureau of Criminal Apprehension from accessing evidence.  Local leaders argue this exclusion undermines trust and transparency. The FBI and Bureau of Criminal Apprehension have worked together on many cases over the years.  As a retired law enforcement professional, I have so many questions that need to be answered.  A joint investigation should be initiated so that the family, community, and nation can have trusted answers to the questions. 

Questions

What authority does ICE have in dealing with blocked traffic flow?  For that matter, what are the mandates for ICE, and what legal authority do officers have in implementing orders? 

Who is Jonathan Ross?  How well trained was he in dealing with the type of situation that he found himself in on January 7?  Did he position himself in a place of danger?  Was deadly force his only option?  How badly was he injured 6 months ago in a previous apprehension attempt, where he was dragged over 50 yards by a fleeing vehicle?  Did he receive any follow-up medical or psychological treatment?  If not, why not?  If so, did the psychological team clear him for a return to duty?

What were Renee Good’s intentions on the morning of January 7?  Did she intend to block an ICE operation?  Was she shocked by the manner of approach by an ICE officer when he attempted to open her door?  Was she defiant?  Was she simply trying to remove herself from an uncomfortable situation?  

Commentary

Only an open, joint investigation can answer these questions.  The various videos and eyewitness statements will help answer some questions.  An investigation into ICE operations, training, and policies that address officer actions will provide additional information.

What is ICE and its mandate?  U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is a federal law‑enforcement agency within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). It was created in 2003 as part of the post‑9/11 reorganization of federal security agencies. Its core mission is to enforce immigration and customs laws inside the United States.  ICE is responsible for investigating, enforcing, and preventing violations of federal immigration, customs, and border‑related laws. It operates primarily inside the U.S. interior, not at the border. Border operations are handled mainly by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

ICE is responsible for locating, arresting, detaining, and removing individuals who violate U.S. immigration laws.  They are also responsible for prioritizing individuals who are recent arrivals, fugitives, or those with criminal convictions.  A third major area of responsibility is conducting worksite enforcement to ensure employers maintain a lawful workforce. Secondary functions include investigating human trafficking, drug smuggling, money laundering, and other cross‑border criminal networks. In fulfilling their duties, ICE must also manage needed detention facilities, ensuring the “safe and humane” detention and removal of individuals ordered to be deported.

ICE agents can conduct operations in public spaces without restriction, but entering private areas requires a judicial warrant. Administrative warrants—common in immigration cases—do not authorize entry into private spaces without consent.  ICE agents, while federal agents, are NOT police officers.  Their scope of authority is limited to detaining and arresting with probable cause, and/or signed arrest warrants, individuals suspected of being in the United States illegally.  ICE has no authority to pull anyone over for a traffic violation.  Any involvement with vehicles must be justified with probable cause that the driver or passengers are wanted on immigration violations.

ICE has been under pressure to rapidly expand its workforce, leading to streamlined training and more field‑office‑based on‑the‑job learning.  Prior to the surge in hiring, ICE agents received 240 days of training which included 25 days of training in Spanish.  New recruits now receive 47 days of training.  The training is less than that of most police officers, who receive at least 75 days of training (with some states requiring 125 days). The ICE training comes closer to the 5-day requirement for citizens to receive firearm permits in many states.

My own cursory examination points in the direction of an ICE operation that exceeded general mandates. The training that ICE officers receive does not prepare them for police work. Several mistakes were made by ICE officers during the Minneapolis confrontation.  While Officer Ross received more than the 47 hours of training now mandated, his training was in enforcement of ICE mandates, arrests and warrants, not police tactics.  The most significant example of not having proper training is a simple axiom taught in most police academies: TIME + DISTANCE = OPTIONS.  Other mistakes, such as the approach of ICE officers, violate another key point in police training.  De-escalate the tension in any given situation.

 In addition, Officer Ross was involved in an arrest attempt in June 2025 where he was injured by being dragged over 50 yards by a suspect in a fleeing vehicle.  He was hospitalized with severe injuries.  To treat his injuries, doctors used 20 stitches in his right arm and 13 in his left hand. It is possible that Officer Ross was not given a proper vetting before being returned to duty.  Without proper clearance, it is possible that Ross did act to protect himself from his own perceived harm.   He was not mentally prepared for a return to duty.   It does not justify what happened, but it does point a guilty finger at the ICE organization.

Conclusion

The administration’s goal of deporting illegal immigrants (particularly criminals) has required additional ICE agents.  To accomplish this goal, the agency has increased its hiring numbers.  To get the new agents on the job quickly, the required training has been reduced to a level that is far below an acceptable level for agents who are now also acting as if they are police officers. 

There are no public records of Officer Ross’s previous leave requirements or the requirements to return to duty.  However, given the just over six-month time span between his first tragic vehicle arrest encounter and the January 7 incident, there should be interest in whether the ICE agency policy of psychological support falls short regarding the officer’s suitability to return to duty.