“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 notice said.
According to the filing, Turning Point USA representatives received information from students that people could access the roof of the Sorenson Center, located near the outdoor area where Kirk was scheduled to speak.
The concern was reportedly brought directly to UVU Police Chief Jeffrey Long.
“When a TPUSA official informed Chief Long of the concern and asked ‘if this is true, it would be nice to either have it controlled access or allow one of my guys to be there as well. If Possible.’ Chief Long responded by saying, ‘I got you covered,’” the notice said.
The Kirk family argues that response gave TPUSA reason to believe university officials had the situation under control.
“This led TPUSA to reasonably conclude that UVU had a plan to address the identified risk and other similar risks (most obviously the risk from other rooftops) without TPUSA involvement,” the notice said.
But the family now alleges that the security preparations were nowhere near sufficient for an event featuring a nationally prominent conservative speaker.
The filing claims there was no written security plan and no pre-event security briefing. Attorneys also argue that the outdoor venue left Kirk surrounded by elevated structures and exposed positions that could potentially be used by an attacker.
The notice described the location as a “fishbowl.”
“The UVU Parties could have declined to approve the Tour event in the outdoor quad location, or could have moved the venue indoors or to a more secure location, as it had done for controversial speakers in the past,” the notice said.
The family further alleges that only six campus police officers were assigned to the event, despite a crowd of approximately 3,000 people. Fox News reported that the filing claims those six officers represented roughly one-quarter of the university police force.
“On information and belief, [UVU Campus Police] Chief Jeffrey Long requested approval from then-UVU President, Astrid Tuminez, to allocate more than the six officers — which represented only 25% of the UVU police force — but his request was denied,” the notice said.
The filing also claims that additional police resources were not obtained from surrounding law enforcement agencies.
Another allegation concerns emergency medical response.
“The UVU Parties’ planning was so deficient that when Mr. Kirk was shot first responders were not available and Mr. Kirk was transported to Timpanogos Regional Hospital in a private vehicle, not an ambulance,” the notice said.
The family argues that the university possessed security capabilities that Kirk’s own organization could not independently provide, including the ability to establish a perimeter, control access to buildings and rooftops, install barriers and deploy other security measures.
The filing also raises concerns about the university’s surveillance system.
According to the family, campus security cameras were operating but were not being monitored in real time. The filing further alleges that no drones were deployed to watch the rooftops surrounding the outdoor event.
“After-the-fact review of the footage at the Preliminary Hearing in the criminal prosecution of the alleged shooter Tyler Robinson showed the shooter running across the roof of the Losee Building to a ‘sniper’s nest,’” the attorneys wrote.
“If such footage had been monitored in real-time, Kirk’s tragic death could have been avoided.”
Authorities have accused Tyler Robinson of carrying out the September 10, 2025 shooting. Investigative documents previously described surveillance footage showing a suspect moving toward the Losee Center before reaching the rooftop from which the fatal shot was allegedly fired.
The Kirk family’s filing ultimately argues that the alleged failures created a foreseeable security threat.
“Through a series of stunning failures and reckless decisions, the UVU Parties created a foreseeable danger to Charlie,” the notice said.
The filing goes further, arguing that Kirk had a reasonable basis to expect the university to provide adequate protection after approving his appearance on campus.
“Those decisions ultimately rendered Mr. Kirk helpless to the rooftop shooter in an assassination that could have been avoided had the UVU Parties only taken reasonable steps to plan and oversee a safe event, steps outlined below that have been standard practice for other universities hosting controversial speakers,” the notice continued.
The university has acknowledged the filing but has not accepted the family’s allegations as established fact.
UVU said it was “aware of the notice of claim,” and that it “addresses legal matters consistent with our established processes,” according to Fox News.
“Our focus remains on supporting our campus community,” the university said in a statement.
Brett Parkinson, an attorney representing the Kirk family, said the family’s position is that the tragedy could have been prevented.
“Charlie Kirk was violently and publicly assassinated while speaking at an event at Utah Valley University (UVU). His murder was entirely preventable and, in fact, would not have happened had the State of Utah and UVU followed through on their stated security promises, which included protecting the rooftops surrounding the quad where Charlie was speaking,” the attorney said.
Parkinson also emphasized the personal consequences for Kirk’s family and framed the filing as an effort to pursue accountability through the legal system.
“Those failures not only robbed Charlie Kirk of his life, but also robbed his family of their husband, father, son, and brother, with impacts that will compound for the rest of their lives. Justice and accountability under the law are key tenets of the American judicial system. This claim preserves the right of Charlie Kirk’s family to pursue accountability for Charlie’s death.”
The notice does not itself establish liability, and the allegations will have to be addressed through the legal process if the family proceeds with litigation.
For Kirk’s family, however, the filing marks the beginning of a new chapter in the aftermath of his death — one focused not only on the alleged shooter, but also on whether the university and state officials responsible for event security took adequate steps to protect a high-profile political speaker facing known security risks.
