Charlie Kirk’s family is taking the first step toward suing Utah Valley University, alleging that a cascade of security failures left the Turning Point USA founder exposed to the rooftop gunman who killed him last year.
Attorneys for the Kirk family filed a Notice of Claim dated September 9 against the State of Utah, Utah Valley University, the university police department, Police Chief Jeffrey Long and former UVU President Astrid Tuminez. Under Utah’s claims process, the notice is a prerequisite to pursuing litigation against the named government entities.
The family’s central allegation is striking: Kirk’s security team specifically warned UVU police about accessible rooftops before the September 10, 2025 event.
According to the claim, Brian Harpole, who headed Kirk’s contracted security team, contacted Long two days before the appearance after receiving information that students could access rooftops overlooking the courtyard.
Harpole asked whether access could be controlled or whether one of Kirk’s security personnel could be stationed there.
Long’s reported response was brief: “I got you covered.”
Two days later, prosecutors allege Tyler Robinson climbed onto the nearby Losee Center and fatally shot Kirk while he addressed a crowd of roughly 3,000 people. Robinson has pleaded not guilty.
Family Alleges a Series of Security Failures
The notice argues that the rooftop warning was only one part of a much larger breakdown.
The Kirk family alleges that UVU failed to conduct a meaningful risk assessment, did not prepare a written security plan, failed to establish a secure perimeter and did not adequately address elevated positions surrounding the outdoor venue.
The family also says the university assigned too few officers to the event. The claim says six uniformed campus officers were assigned despite a request for additional personnel. UVU has previously said eight campus officers were present, consisting of six uniformed officers and two plainclothes officers.
The filing further alleges that campus surveillance cameras were not being actively monitored. Surveillance footage later presented in court reportedly showed a person running across the Losee Center roof toward an area described by an officer as a sniper position. The family argues that real-time monitoring could have allowed security personnel to intervene.
Attorneys also contend that UVU could have restricted access to portions of campus or moved the event indoors.
The university, however, has previously said Kirk’s team requested the courtyard because it allowed him to interact with students passing through campus.
‘Walking Him Into a Fishbowl’
The family’s attorneys use particularly stark language to describe the decision to hold the event outdoors.
They characterize placing a politically prominent speaker in a courtyard surrounded by tall buildings and elevated positions as effectively putting him in a “fishbowl.”
The claim also argues that Kirk’s public profile and history of receiving threats should have prompted greater preparation.
Those concerns, the family says, were especially relevant after the July 2024 assassination attempt against Donald Trump, in which a gunman fired from an elevated rooftop during an outdoor political rally.
The notice ultimately alleges six broad failures, ranging from inadequate preparation and insufficient staffing to ignoring the specific warning about rooftop access. Those remain allegations in a prospective civil case, not judicial findings.
UVU Has Not Conceded the Family’s Claims
Utah Valley University acknowledged receiving the notice but has not accepted the family’s allegations.
The university said it handles legal matters through its established procedures and has pointed to an independent review commissioned after Kirk’s killing. UVU announced that review shortly after the assassination, saying an outside organization would examine the attack and identify ways to improve campus preparedness and response.
That review could become particularly significant as the legal dispute develops.
For Kirk’s family, however, the question at the center of the claim is already clear: Security was warned about the rooftops. What happened after that warning?
The Notice of Claim preserves the family’s ability to pursue damages and potentially put UVU officials’ security decisions under much greater legal scrutiny. It does not itself establish liability, and the university will have an opportunity to contest both the factual allegations and the claim that different security measures would have prevented Kirk’s death.