In the months leading up to the fatal shooting of Lucas Gilbertson during an attempted arrest, an East Grand Forks police officer was found to have exchanged numerous emails with the county attorney who later absolved him of any legal wrongdoing. This interaction, comprising at least 64 emails, has raised concerns about potential impartiality in the investigation process. A representative from a statewide watchdog group has highlighted the potential conflict of interest, suggesting that the extensive communication could have influenced Polk County Attorney Greg Widseth’s judgment.
The incident occurred when Sgt. Aeisso Schrage shot 42-year-old Gilbertson while attempting to arrest him for bond violations. The apprehension was prompted by a tip received by the Pine to Prairie Task Force, indicating Gilbertson’s presence at his mother’s residence in Rhinehart Township near East Grand Forks. According to Schrage’s account, Gilbertson aggressively approached the officers, leading Schrage to open fire. Gilbertson succumbed to three gunshot wounds later that day. Both officers were undercover, and as such, were not equipped with body cameras during the incident.
Widseth reviewed the investigative file from the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension and subsequently declared in September that there was no basis for criminal charges against Schrage. However, questions have arisen regarding the nature of the relationship between Widseth and Schrage, especially after it was reported that they were connected on social media, which prompted further scrutiny and a public records request to determine the extent of their interactions.
According to the Minnesota County Attorneys Association, there is no statewide protocol for transferring a deadly force investigation review to another county due to potential conflicts of interest; such decisions are left to individual counties. Polk County lacks a written policy on the matter, relying instead on a case-by-case evaluation based on the specific facts.
Alicia Granse of the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota noted the broad discretion afforded to prosecutors, suggesting that a lack of oversight can be detrimental in cases like this. She advocates for greater transparency and accountability, emphasizing the need for clear policies governing potential conflicts of interest in prosecutorial decisions.
The records request filed in January sought all written communication between Widseth and Schrage in the six months preceding the shooting, alongside correspondence related to Widseth’s involvement in the investigation. Widseth indicated that while his office was compiling emails, a personal review was necessary to determine which records could be made public.
The disclosed emails, numbering 64, consisted largely of work-related exchanges, including discussions on criminal cases and law enforcement logistics. The second part of the request, focused on the investigation review, primarily consisted of media inquiries and did not reveal any personal communications between Widseth and Schrage.
Some records were withheld under statutes protecting active criminal investigations, informant identities, and attorney work products. Legal experts have pointed out that these protections can obscure public access to information, potentially allowing law enforcement to control the narrative.
The lack of transparency has sparked calls for clearer policies and greater accountability, particularly from concerned community members. The Minnesota Attorney General’s Office declined to comment on Widseth’s decision not to delegate the investigation review, emphasizing a policy of refraining from legal analysis for media inquiries.
The situation underscores ongoing debates about transparency and accountability in law enforcement and prosecutorial practices, raising questions about how such cases are managed and reviewed within Minnesota’s legal framework.
