Marimar Martinez Fights for Transparency After Border Patrol Shooting

A Chicago woman who survived being shot five times by a federal Border Patrol agent is now asking a federal court to force the government to release evidence it has kept hidden from the public.

Marimar Martinez was wounded during a 2023 encounter with federal agents that, according to her legal team, escalated rapidly and violently. Martinez alleges that federal agents rammed her vehicle and that, moments before she was shot multiple times, one agent taunted her to “do something” before opening fire.

Martinez survived the shooting. Federal prosecutors later dropped all criminal charges against her.

Now, she is seeking a court order compelling the release of body-camera footage, internal communications, photographs, and other evidence related to the incident—materials the government has so far refused to make public.

Charges Dropped, Narrative Remains

Despite the dismissal of charges, Martinez’s attorneys argue that the government has continued to publicly frame her as a dangerous threat, even labeling her a “domestic terrorist” in internal and external communications. Her legal team says that characterization is false, damaging, and unsupported by the facts—especially given that prosecutors declined to pursue the case.

According to court filings, Martinez is not seeking disclosure merely to clear her name, but to allow the public to see what actually happened during the encounter.

“This is about transparency,” her attorneys argue. “The public has a right to evaluate the use of deadly force by federal agents—especially when the individual shot was never convicted of a crime.”

A Broader Pattern Under Scrutiny

Martinez’s case is unfolding against a backdrop of growing public concern over federal use-of-force incidents. Her attorneys point to recent fatal shootings in Minneapolis involving Renee Good and Alex Pretti, both of whom were killed during encounters involving Immigration and Customs Enforcement or U.S. Border Patrol personnel.

Those cases, now under intense public scrutiny, have raised renewed questions about accountability within the Department of Homeland Security, particularly when shootings involve U.S. citizens or individuals who were never convicted of a crime.

Civil rights advocates argue that a familiar pattern often follows these incidents: initial government statements emphasize alleged threats to officer safety, evidence remains sealed for extended periods, and meaningful public review only occurs after sustained legal pressure—if it occurs at all.

The Transparency Question

Every time a DHS agent uses deadly force, the same questions arise: Was the force justified? Were constitutional protections respected? And why is critical evidence so often withheld from public view?

Martinez’s case now sits at the center of that debate. Her survival—and the subsequent dismissal of charges—makes her legal fight unusual and potentially consequential. A ruling in her favor could establish a stronger precedent for public access to federal law-enforcement records involving shootings.

For Martinez, the goal is straightforward.

She wants the evidence released.
She wants the record corrected.
And she wants Americans to judge the facts for themselves.

As the case moves forward, it may help determine whether transparency is the exception—or the expectation—when federal agents use deadly force.