BREAKING: Raymundo Gutierrez Named as CBP Agent in Alex Pretti Shooting, Homicide Ruling Intensifies Scrutiny
I can confirm that Raymundo Gutierrez is one of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents involved in the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti in Minneapolis. The Hennepin County medical examiner has ruled Pretti’s death a homicide. That ruling does not by itself decide blame, but it raises the stakes for every agency now engaged. Pressure is mounting for answers, records, and accountability.
What We Know Right Now
The identification of Gutierrez is a turning point. Names matter in public accountability. They also matter in court. This disclosure anchors the case in real people and real policies, not only a vague incident. It gives the public a clearer path to demand records and oversight.
The homicide ruling is a legal classification of the manner of death. It means a person caused the death of another person. It does not mean a crime has been proven. Prosecutors still must decide whether to bring charges. They will review evidence, policies, and the agents’ accounts.
Multiple probes are expected. Those inquiries will map the timeline, the use of force, and whether federal protocols were followed.
- A criminal review by local prosecutors
- A parallel federal civil rights review
- An internal CBP use of force inquiry
- Oversight by the Department of Homeland Security inspector general
A homicide ruling is not a conviction. It is a medical finding that guides legal review and policy response.
The Legal Stakes for Federal Use of Force
This case will turn on reasonableness. Courts ask whether an officer’s actions were objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. That standard comes from Supreme Court cases that govern every police shooting in the country. Deadly force is lawful only when there is an immediate threat of death or serious injury.
Because federal agents were involved, the legal map is more complex. Local prosecutors can consider state charges. The agents can seek to move any state case to federal court. They can raise a Supremacy Clause defense, arguing they acted within federal authority. Federal prosecutors can also open a separate civil rights case. These tracks can run at the same time.
Internal statements by agents are often protected for disciplinary use. They cannot always be used in criminal court. That rule, known as Garrity protection, shapes how investigators question officers. It also affects what evidence reaches a jury.
Civil suits are likely. Families often file constitutional claims against federal officers or the United States. That path can involve the Federal Tort Claims Act for negligence against the government, and separate constitutional claims against individuals. Qualified immunity will be front and center in any civil case.
Families should track civil deadlines. Federal claims can have short clocks, even while criminal reviews are still pending.
Transparency, Policy, and the Public’s Right to Know
Naming Gutierrez shifts the transparency debate. It focuses public records requests. It directs oversight to a specific officer’s training history, prior incidents, and policy compliance. It also raises questions for CBP leadership, including how and why agents were operating in Minneapolis, and under what interagency authority.
Body camera footage, radio traffic, and after action reports will be vital. Federal agencies have begun rolling out body cameras for special operations, but policies vary. If video exists, it should be preserved and reviewed promptly. If it does not, that gap will drive policy reform talks.
Minnesota law allows limited disclosure of investigative data during an active probe. Families typically have priority access. The public can seek records through state data requests and federal FOIA. Response times can be slow. Firm requests, with precise date and location details, help.
Citizens have rights in moments like this. People can gather peacefully, speak, and record law enforcement in public. Officers can set time, place, and manner limits for safety, but they cannot shut down speech because of content.
- Record from a safe distance
- Do not interfere with active duties
- Keep your phone unlocked with a passcode, not only biometrics
- Ask for badge names and numbers
If you plan a civil claim against the United States, file a notice under the Federal Tort Claims Act within two years of the incident.
What the Homicide Ruling Changes
The homicide ruling clarifies the path ahead. It refines the questions investigators must answer. Was deadly force necessary at the exact moment it was used. Did officers identify themselves and issue commands. Were there safer alternatives, and were they practical.
For policymakers, it pressures agencies to disclose more. That includes naming officers, describing the mission that brought them to the city, and stating which use of force policy applied. Jurisdictional fog is a recipe for mistrust. Clear policy statements build confidence and reduce conflict.
For the Pretti family, it opens routes for both criminal review and civil relief. It does not guarantee charges. It does guarantee a higher level of scrutiny, and a paper trail that can be tested in court.
The Road Ahead
I will continue to press for the operational orders that placed Gutierrez in Minneapolis, any available video, and the full incident log. The public deserves a timeline and a justification, not only a headline. The identification of Raymundo Gutierrez does not end the story. It begins a new phase, one grounded in law, rights, and hard records. Justice requires nothing less.
