Now his family is preparing to take the university and the State of Utah to court, alleging officials were warned about a potentially dangerous vulnerability involving campus rooftops before Kirk ever stepped in front of the crowd.
A Warning Before Kirk Took the Stage
The Kirk family filed a notice of claim dated September 9, 2026, naming Utah Valley University, the State of Utah, the UVU Police Department, Police Chief Jeffrey Long, former UVU President Astrid Tuminez and other potential defendants.
The filing is a preliminary legal step rather than a final lawsuit, and its allegations have not been adjudicated.
But the details contained in it raise serious questions about preparations for Kirk’s September 10, 2025, appearance.
According to the filing, Turning Point USA personnel contacted Long after receiving information from students about roof access at the Sorensen Student Center near the outdoor speaking area.
TPUSA wanted that access controlled or permission for Kirk’s own security personnel to help secure it.
Long allegedly responded: “I got you covered.”
Prosecutors say Kirk’s accused killer ultimately fired from a different location — the roof of the Losee Center.
The Kirk family argues that the earlier warning nevertheless demonstrates that the broader threat posed by accessible elevated positions around the venue was known before the event.
Six Officers for Thousands of People
The notice paints a troubling picture of the security operation.
According to the family’s allegations, approximately 3,000 people attended Kirk’s appearance, while just six UVU police officers were assigned to the event.
The filing says Long sought authorization from Tuminez to commit more officers but was denied. It further alleges that UVU police did not subsequently obtain additional manpower from neighboring law enforcement agencies.
There were also no metal detectors or bag checks, according to reporting on the claim.
The family alleges there was no adequate written security plan or meaningful advance briefing addressing the dangers surrounding the outdoor venue.
Perhaps most significantly, surveillance cameras were operating around campus, but the family’s filing says they were not being actively monitored in a way that could have alerted authorities to the alleged shooter moving into position.
The claim also says there was no ambulance stationed at the event.
After Kirk was shot, he was taken to Timpanogos Regional Hospital in a private vehicle.
The Rooftop Question
The family’s attorneys argue that the possibility of a shooter using elevated ground should have received particular attention after the July 2024 attempted assassination of Donald Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania.
“The risk of a rooftop shooter should have been especially top-of-mind given the attempted assassination of President Trump, Charlie Kirk’s close friend and political ally, by a rooftop shooter the previous year,” the filing states.
That argument is likely to become central to any eventual civil litigation.
Kirk was not an obscure campus speaker.
He was the founder of Turning Point USA, a nationally recognized conservative activist and a prominent Trump ally who routinely attracted large crowds — and fierce political opposition.
The family argues that UVU had both the authority and opportunity to impose stronger security measures around the event.
Their notice also contends that university officials could have relocated the appearance indoors.
Instead, Kirk spoke outside in an area surrounded by university buildings.
Former Security Professionals Question the Setup
Security specialists have also publicly questioned whether the protection surrounding the event was sufficient.
Greg Shaffer, who previously oversaw Kirk’s personal security, said after the assassination: “Absolutely there were security failures; it left him exposed. It was egregious enough that someone was able to take advantage and kill him.”
Those assessments do not themselves establish legal liability on UVU’s part.
That question would have to be resolved through the legal process, and Utah’s governmental-immunity laws could present substantial obstacles to a wrongful-death case.
But the family’s filing is attempting to establish something more specific than simply arguing that security should have been better.
It alleges officials were given a concrete warning about rooftop access before the event and failed to adequately address the wider elevated-position threat.
UVU Faces a Potential Court Fight
UVU has acknowledged receiving the family’s notice but has not conceded the allegations.
“We are aware of the notice of claim. UVU addresses legal matters consistent with our established processes,” a university spokesperson said.
The notice includes contemplated wrongful-death claims as well as a federal constitutional theory involving what the family describes as a “state-created danger.”
Whether those arguments survive Utah’s legal protections for government entities will ultimately be a matter for the courts if the family proceeds with its lawsuit.
Meanwhile, the criminal prosecution remains separate.
Tyler Robinson has been charged in Kirk’s killing and has pleaded not guilty. Prosecutors have presented DNA evidence, surveillance footage and other evidence as they seek to move the case toward trial. The defense has challenged portions of the state’s evidence.
No criminal allegation against Robinson establishes civil responsibility on the part of UVU.
But the Kirk family’s filing puts another question squarely before the public: What precautions were taken after university officials were explicitly warned that accessible rooftops near Charlie Kirk’s speaking location could pose a security problem?
The answer could become the centerpiece of one of the most closely watched wrongful-death disputes in Utah.
For Kirk’s widow, Erika, their two children and the rest of his family, the issue is no longer theoretical.
They say the danger was identified before Kirk walked onto that campus.
Now they want a court to determine whether the people responsible for securing the event did enough about it.
