When federal authorities assert control over a case involving the use of deadly force by a federal agent, it can raise questions about how — or whether — a state can pursue its own investigation. That scenario is unfolding now in Minnesota after the fatal shooting of Renee Nicole Good by a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer, prompting scrutiny of the balance of investigative authority between state and federal jurisdiction.
State sovereignty and parallel investigations
Connecticut law, like the law in most states, acknowledges that states are sovereign entities capable of pursuing criminal investigations independently of federal action. “There’s really no such thing as first claim or second claim,” said Mike Lawlor, an associate professor of criminal justice at the University of New Haven and a former state lawmaker. “Every state is sovereign in its own right, and so a state can choose to pursue an investigation and potentially an arrest, and the feds can do the same thing.”
He noted that while federal agencies can make the process more difficult for a state — for example, by controlling access to evidence — they cannot legally prevent a state investigation from proceeding on its own terms.
Connecticut’s inspector general law
Connecticut’s inspector general statute, enacted in 2020 after the murder of George Floyd, specifically charges the inspector general with investigating all law-enforcement-related deaths within the state. That mandate extends to federal officers who enforce certain federal laws. “Our inspector general not only has the authority, but he has the obligation to investigate every law enforcement related death, and that includes state and also federal officials,” Lawlor said, noting that the statute explicitly covers U.S. Marshals and other federal drug law enforcement officers — potentially encompassing Homeland Security officials.
He added, “Whether he could complete that successfully is another issue if it’s being obstructed by the feds. But time will tell.”
Use-of-force standards in Connecticut
Lawlor said Connecticut’s recent updates to use-of-force guidelines would set the stage for a tougher review of an officer’s decisions in a shooting scenario. He pointed to changes made after a 2019 incident in Wethersfield involving a routine traffic stop that ended in a fatal shooting. In the aftermath, state law was clarified to restrict law enforcement officers from firing at moving vehicles except under very limited circumstances, and explicitly bars officers from positioning themselves in front of a moving vehicle.
“In part because of that incident … the use of deadly force against the motor vehicle policy was changed,” Lawlor said. “If you did that today … I’m pretty confident that officer would be charged with one of the various homicide crimes.”
Hartford protest unlikely to prompt state probe
Last weekend’s protests in Hartford over the Minnesota shooting, during which pepper spray was reportedly used and a federal vehicle made contact with the crowd, are being investigated by the Hartford Police Department. Lawlor said he did not expect the Connecticut state government to launch its own investigation into that event.
“I know that… their police department are investigating it. But I think this is fortunate that nobody was seriously injured,” he said.
Lawlor also cautioned against illegal interference with federal officers.
“It’s important for people to understand that interfering with any federal officer doing his or her duty is a federal crime,” he said. “There’s plenty of ways to peacefully protest without directly interfering with them.”
