Skip to main content

Lawyer for Alex Pretti’s parents calls Border Patrol killing investigation “an absolute nightmare”

Click here for updates on this story

    MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota (WCCO) — Six months ago, U.S. Border Patrol agents killed ICU nurse Alex Pretti in south Minneapolis during Operation Metro Surge.

Only on WCCO, we’re hearing from his parents, Susan and Michael Pretti, through attorney Steven Schleicher about the investigation into their son’s death.

Schleicher called this investigation “an absolute nightmare.” He said the Pretti family still has no information about who killed their son.

The video of his killing was watched across the world, sparking community outcry, grief, sadness and frustration.

“For the family, every single day without answers is a nightmare,” Schleicher said. “It’s painful and, frankly, it’s cruel.”

Schleicher says the investigation has been more hurtful than most people could even begin to imagine.

“Learning not only that their son was murdered, but that people were telling lies about him,” Schleicher said.

Schleicher was a top federal prosecutor during the aftermath of George Floyd’s murder in Minneapolis in May 2020.

“I saw state and federal authorities working together,” he said.

Schleicher says he doesn’t know why there isn’t that cooperation now.

“I don’t think there is a good explanation for why that isn’t happening,” he said. “When I met with Dan Rosen, the United States attorney, he would neither confirm or deny that any information was shared or provide any meaningful information to the family.”

Although Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty said her investigators now have access to hard drives and body-worn cameras, Schleicher says he doesn’t need those new views to see what happened.

“It was a cellphone. He was holding a cellphone. He was recording his cellphone, his other hand was empty,” Schleicher said.

After the deadly shooting, now-former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said Pretti committed an act of domestic terrorism. Schleicher said he hasn’t spoken with her since.

“A very high office to spread these lies about them is painful,” Schleicher said. “What the Prettis want is to quietly grieve their son, but they’re not allowed to do that.”

WCCO reached out to both the U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI, which both declined to comment.

A spokesperson for the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office gave this statement to WCCO Thursday: “Our analysis of the evidence continues, and we’re committed to being transparent about our decision when it’s reached.”

Susan Pretti released a statement last week to mark six months since the shooting, saying in part, “six months of pain, a rollercoaster of trauma over and over.”

Please note: This story was provided to CNN Wire by an affiliate and does not contain original CNN reporting. This content carries a strict local market embargo. If you share the same market as the contributor of this article, you may not use it on any platform.

Former US archivists warn that Trump’s effort to ignore records law jeopardizes national security and government continuity

(CNN) — Former leaders of the National Archives — which preserves and protects the nation’s most important documents — are urging a federal appeals court to reject the Trump administration’s effort to ignore the Presidential Records Act, a decades old law that requires presidents save all official records from their time in office.Six archivists, who served under both Republican and Democratic presidents, argue that the law is critical in maintaining “continuity of governance” and protecting national security.The archivists — a coalition covering every living person to have previously held the role before Marco Rubio’s brief appointment to the position at the beginning of Trump’s second term — filed an amicus brief Wednesday in support of a lawsuit from presidential scholars, historians and public transparency groups.The legal fight began after the Trump administration said it believed the president did not need to comply with decades-old record-keeping obligations set by Congress in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal. The law, which Trump’s Justice Department has claimed is unconstitutional, is intended to preserve documents so that future presidents, members of Congress, courts and the public can understand how an administration made critical decisions.“Preserving presidential records ensures that new leaders can have immediate and ongoing access to the data, strategy, and rationale behind past policy decisions,” the group said, noting that, in their experience, the most “frequent request for preserved presidential records comes from the incoming president’s national security advisors.”The archivists signed on to the brief are Trudy Huskamp Peterson, John W. Carlin, David S. Ferriero, Debra Steidel Wall, Colleen Shogan and William J. Bosanko — as well as Gary M. Stern, a former agency general counsel.The plea from the former archivists comes months after a federal judge in Washington said that White House staff must preserve their official records while the lawsuit plays out in court but declined to put any restrictions directly on the president, the vice president, the National Archives and archivist.In the May ruling, US District Judge John Bates concluded that the Presidential Records Act (PRA) was likely constitutional, rebuking the stance taken by the Justice Department earlier this year. The Justice Department has appealed the ruling to the US DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral arguments are slated for October 16.The PRA requires presidents and their staff to preserve White House records and turn those records over to the National Archives at the end of their administrations.It was instrumental in the chain of events that led to Trump’s prosecution for allegedly mishandling classified documents that he took from the White House at the end of his first term.The legal fight stems from a conclusion from Trump’s Office of Legal Counsel, a Justice Department office that gives advice to the executive branch, that the law was unconstitutional. The OLC memo was seen as an audacious move for a number of reasons, including for how it seemed to eschew Supreme Court precedent backing Congress’ power to regulate presidential record preservation. The guidance only addressed the preservation of email and text messages, rather than all electronic records, which the PRA covers.The American Historical Association and the left-leaning government transparency group American Oversight quickly filed a lawsuit, warning that presidential records they intend to use for their research “will be irretrievably lost” if the court didn’t intervene.The former archivists say the PRA “helps to bridge the gap between the outgoing and incoming administrations.”“Geopolitical tensions do not pause for an inauguration,” they wrote in the court filing. “Presidential records include the entire holdings of the National Security Council… such as sensitive intelligence assessments, treaty negotiations, and operational contingency plans. Ensuring that these files are preserved and seamlessly made available to new administration officials allows incoming national security advisors and cabinet officials to evaluate active threats, maintain diplomatic momentum, and make informed decisions during unexpected global crises.”The administration has rebuffed concerns, insisting that the “lion’s share” of presidential records are being preserved, because work being done by presidential staff on White House-issued phones is being kept.CNN’s Tierney Sneed contributed to this report.The-CNN-Wire™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.
Read Next Story