← AI Defense Attorney

Move To Suppress The Crime-Scene Evidence — There Is No Public Warrant For The Scene

:::caution Legal Disclaimer Tyler Robinson is charged, not convicted, and is presumed innocent. Nothing on this page states as fact that any living person committed a crime, destroyed evidence, or acted improperly. Court filings in this case are subject to a gag order and sealing, so the public record is incomplete by design. :::

The One Thing We Would Do Differently

File a Rule 12 motion to suppress every item taken from the four Utah Valley University scenes, and in the alternative move to compel production of the complete search-warrant inventory and every return in this case. Either the State produces the scene warrant, or it concedes on the record that there is none. Both answers are useful.

Twenty-five numbered search warrants from this investigation are public. They run 3212261 through 3229461. We have read all of them. They cover a great deal of Tyler Robinson's life and almost nothing of the place where Charlie Kirk died.

Grouped by what they authorise, the twenty-five break down like this:

• Two reach medical facilities. Warrant 3212261 (10 September 2025) authorises access to "the deceased body of Charles James Kirk", a search of his person and the belongings that travelled with him, and photographs, at Timpanogos Regional Hospital, 750 W 800 N, Orem. Warrant 3212321 reaches surveillance footage at Intermountain Health Utah Valley Hospital in Provo.
• Eleven are served on companies — Google geofence and account data, T-Mobile, AT&T and Verizon cell-site records, Discord servers, Lumen/Quantum Fiber, and two Apple iCloud accounts.
• Nine reach Robinson himself: his person, the St. George apartment, the Dodge Challenger twice, his parents' home on Cimarron Drive, and four separate device warrants.
• Three reach items belonging to other individuals — two devices and a dashcam.

None of the twenty-five names the Utah Valley University campus as a place to be searched. Not the Losee Center roof. Not the courtyard. Not the wooded area where the rifle was recovered. Not the towel and not the screwdriver. Warrant 3212261, the only one that touches Charlie Kirk at all, stops at a hospital room in Orem.

The twenty-five warrants in the public set

Read the list and the shape of the investigation reads back at you. It is an investigation into a person, conducted almost entirely through his accounts and his belongings, and it never once names the ground where the death happened.

#	Warrant	Signed	What it authorises	Return in the public set
1	3212261	2025-09-10	Charlie Kirk's body, person and belongings, and photographs, at Timpanogos Regional Hospital, Orem	Yes
2	3212321	2025-09-10	Surveillance footage, Intermountain Health Utah Valley Hospital, Provo	Yes
3	3212601	2025-09-11	Anonymised geofence data from Google	Returned 9-23-25
4	3212881	2025-09-11	An electronic device belonging to another individual, Payson residence	Returned 9-18-25
5	3212941	2025-09-11	Historical cell-site location data, T-Mobile, AT&T and Verizon, four locations including a 1,900 ft radius on the UVU Losee Building	Yes
6	3213451	2025-09-12	The person of Tyler Robinson — trace, prints, DNA and personal effects	Yes
7	3213481	2025-09-12	Premises, 3419 South River Road Unit 73, St. George	Yes
8	3213501	2025-09-12	2013 Dodge Challenger	Returned 9-18-25
9	3213511	2025-09-12	Guns, accessories and physical evidence inside a Washington, Utah residence	Yes
10	3213621	2025-09-12	An iPhone 14 in a clear case with a cracked screen	Returned 9-18-25
11	3213811	2025-09-12	Contents of a dark blue iPhone 13	Yes
12	3214291	2025-09-13	The same dark blue iPhone 13, by IMEI	Returned 9-18-25
13	3214311	2025-09-13	Discord names and server IDs for two named servers	Yes
14	3214341	2025-09-13	Verizon account records for one number	Yes
15	3214411	2025-09-13	Verizon location data for a second number	Yes
16	3214731	2025-09-14	Verizon location data for the first number	Yes
17	3214751	2025-09-14	Multiple digital devices recovered from the St. George apartment	Yes
18	3214771	2025-09-14	The Dodge Challenger again, by VIN	Yes
19	3215171	2025-09-15	A phone belonging to another individual, on an unrelated matter	Returned 10-22-25
20	3215261	2025-09-15	Google account information for two named accounts	Yes
21	3215391	2025-09-15	A VANTRUE dash camera, by serial number	Returned 9-23-25
22	3216271	2025-09-17	Lumen Technologies / Quantum Fiber account	Return not included
23	3217031	2025-09-17	Apple Inc. account and iCloud data, one account	Return not included
24	3217131	2025-09-17	Apple Inc. account and iCloud data, a second account	Return not included
25	3229461	2025-10-06	Discord Inc., one named server	Returned 10-14-25

Two further features of that table matter. Between row 24 (17 September 2025) and row 25 (6 October 2025) there are nineteen days and roughly twelve thousand warrant numbers, and the public set holds nothing from that span. After row 25 the set simply stops. There is no warrant of any kind from any date after 6 October 2025, in an investigation that was still receiving provider productions in August 2026.

Note also row 5. Somebody drew a 1,900-foot circle around the Losee Building and got a judge to sign for every phone inside it. The physical ground inside that same circle is the one thing no warrant in the set describes.

That is a structural hole, and an AI defense attorney treats it as the pretrial motion, because unlike almost every other line in this case it does not ask the State for a favour. It asks the court to take evidence away. The rifle, the towel, the screwdriver, the cartridge case with the engraving on it, the gravel disturbance, the swipes on the northeast ledge — all of it entered this case through a scene entry whose legal authority has never been stated on any public record. Suppress that and the State's case is not weakened; it is gone.

What The Defense Team Did Instead

On the visible record, counsel has litigated the reliability and confrontation problems hard and early. A Formal Request For Discovery Pursuant To URCrP 16 was filed 30 September 2025 (Dkt. 61). A Second Request for DNA and Other Forensic Discovery followed on 25 March 2026. The Defendant's Standing Objections to the State's Preliminary Hearing Exhibits, filed 3 July 2026, raise Eighth Amendment heightened-reliability, Sixth Amendment confrontation and compulsory-process, Fourteenth Amendment due-process, and Utah separation-of-powers grounds against the whole Rule 1102 architecture. The 28 August 2026 Discovery Status Report states that a motion to compel forensic discovery from the FBI and the ATF is being prepared, and that counsel will ask the court on 1 September 2026 to set a briefing schedule for it.

The standing objections we hold do not raise a Fourth Amendment or Utah Const. art. I, § 14 ground. That is unremarkable, and here is why: a motion to suppress is not due yet. Utah does not conduct suppression litigation at a preliminary hearing, and this case has not been bound over. Under Utah Rule of Criminal Procedure 12, suppression is a pretrial motion that belongs after bind-over. A step not yet due has not been missed.

What is also true is that counsel of record almost certainly already knows the answer to the question this page asks. The 28 August 2026 status report lists, among the categories of discovery actually produced, "search warrants applications, affidavits, and non-digital returns" and "evidence logs". The warrant inventory is in the defense file. It is not in the public file. This page is about the public file, and that is the whole of what we assert. The filings in this case are gagged and partly sealed.

Where This Belongs In The Case

Stage of the case	When that stage runs	Status of this step
Rule 16 discovery — demand the warrant inventory and every return	From arraignment onward; available since September 2025	Rule 16 request on the docket 30 Sept 2025; no public filing names the scene warrant
Preliminary hearing cross	July 6-10, 2026 — completed	Certified Day 4 contains one mention of search warrants, as to the St. George residences
Rule 12 motion to suppress	After bind-over, before trial	Not yet due — the case has not been bound over
Trial — suppression renewed and chain-of-custody cross	No trial date set	Still fully open

Witness Or Discovery Target

How it would be done	Target	Took the stand?	Status on the public record
Rule 12 motion to suppress, Fourth Amendment and Utah Const. art. I, § 14	The court, as to every item from the four UVU scenes	n/a	Not yet due; case not bound over
Alternative motion to compel — complete warrant inventory and every return	Utah County Attorney's Office	n/a	Not found in the filings we hold
Cross-examination — witness testified, this line not pursued on the certified record	Sgt. Jennifer Faumuina, who oversaw all four scenes and the physical evidence	Yes — July 7 and July 9, 2026	T1 — certified Day 4 searched; "warrants" appears once, as to St. George
Cross-examination — witness testified, transcript not certified	Officer Chris Bagley, Losee roof, screwdriver, gravel	Yes — July 6, 2026	T3 — Day 1 is a pool-feed machine transcript, not the record
Records demand — activity log and authority for the wooded-area recovery	FBI Evidence Response Team, via the State	n/a	Not found in the material we hold
Records demand — any written consent to search UVU property	Utah Valley University, as property owner	n/a	Not found in the material we hold
Rule 12 companion — challenge to the three warrants marked "Return not included"	3216271, 3217031, 3217131	n/a	Returns absent from the public set

The Questions That Were Not Asked

Questions 1 through 10 are addressed to Sergeant Jennifer Faumuina. She testified on Day 4, 9 July 2026, and we hold the certified Moorhead transcript of that day, 278 pages. We searched it. The word "warrants" appears exactly once, at page 108, line 20, where she describes overseeing "the execution of the search warrants at both Mr. Robinson's residence as well as his parents' residence" in St. George. The phrases "consent" and "chain of custody" do not appear anywhere in the day. At T1 we may therefore say plainly: no witness on the certified Day 4 record was asked to state the legal authority under which any UVU scene was entered.

1. Sergeant, you told this court there were four scenes — the courtyard or amphitheatre, the Fulton Library where there were two bus stops, the wooded area, and the Losee Center building and the ground below. For which of those four was a search warrant obtained?
2. You testified that the rooftop was processed by the Utah Bureau of Forensic Services, the state crime lab. Under whose written authority did that team go onto that roof?
3. Before your people began processing the courtyard, did anyone hand you a signed warrant?
4. Did anyone hand you a written consent to search, signed by Utah Valley University?
5. You told this court that a little before six o'clock that evening the Utah County Sheriff's Office called and told you they had found a gun, and that you asked them to hold the scene while you and the FBI Evidence Response Team lead drove out to it. How long did that scene stay held?
6. During that interval, while deputies stood on a scene that was going nowhere, did anybody apply for a warrant for that wooded area?
7. Warrant 3212261 was signed on the day of the shooting and it authorised entry to a hospital room in Orem to photograph Charlie Kirk's body and search his belongings. Somebody sat down that day and wrote out an affidavit for a hospital room. Are you aware of a companion warrant for the courtyard he was sitting in when he died?
8. The two bus stops at the Fulton Library are a walk away from the courtyard. What was the emergency that made searching two bus stops impossible to postpone until a judge could sign something?
9. You testified the towel was packaged and provided to the FBI, that the rifle went to the FBI and then to the ATF laboratory, and that the cartridges went the same way. What document recorded each of those transfers, and is that document a return on a warrant?
10. Was a written return and inventory ever filed for any of the four scenes you oversaw?

Questions 11 through 13 are addressed to Officer Chris Bagley. He testified on Day 1, 6 July 2026. We hold no certified transcript of that day — only a machine transcription of the pool feed, which is not the record. We therefore make no statement about what was or was not asked of him. These are the questions this exercise would put.

11. Officer, you reached the Losee Center roof roughly twenty-one minutes after the shot. Who was the person carrying a badge who went up with you?
12. Did anyone tell you, at any point that day, that a warrant had been obtained for that roof?
13. The gravel disturbance was documented at night, under oblique lighting, hours after you first went up. Was a warrant read to anyone before that work began?

Why A Defense Attorney Would Want This

Every other instrument on this site asks somebody for something. This one asks the court to subtract. That is a different kind of motion and it carries a different kind of leverage, because there is no answer the State can give that does not help the defense.

If the State produces a scene warrant, we have a document nobody outside the case has seen, with an affidavit in it that was written within hours of the shooting, by a named affiant, describing what officers believed at that moment — and every discrepancy between that affidavit and the theory the State argued in July 2026 becomes cross-examination. If the State says there is no scene warrant, it has conceded on the record that the roof, the courtyard, the bus stops and the wooded area were all entered and stripped without one, and the fight moves to exigency and consent, where the State bears the burden. If the State says nothing, that silence goes in front of the judge who has to decide whether to bind this case over. A refusal is also an answer, and this is the cleanest example of it in the whole case.

There is a second reason, and it is about timing. The one substantive statement about warrant secrecy on any certified record in this case comes from the Day 5 transcript, 10 July 2026, where counsel described a search warrant initially filed on 17 September 2025 in a different court within the Fourth District, "held for six months as search warrants often are," and then "on March 17th — March 16th/March 17th, was released in full." That is a six-month clock, and it is the clock that put the twenty-five warrants we hold into public view in the spring of 2026. A warrant for the UVU scene issued in the same September-to-October 2025 window would have come off that same clock, with the same batch, in the same weeks. It did not appear. That is not proof it does not exist. It is a specific, checkable reason to make the State say so.

Third, the alternative relief is the part a judge grants easily. Compelling the complete warrant inventory costs the State nothing, touches no classified holding, requires no federal agency to waive anything, and is a routine housekeeping order. It also incidentally closes three named holes: warrants 3216271 (Lumen/Quantum Fiber), 3217031 (Apple, cratfin247) and 3217131 (Apple, lancetwiggs) are all marked "Return not included" in the public set, and there is a 19-day, roughly 12,000-number gap between 3217131 on 17 September 2025 and 3229461 on 6 October 2025, with nothing at all after 6 October 2025. Yet the 28 August 2026 status report records a second Apple production of about 170 GB arriving on 18 August 2026. Something authorised that production. Whatever it was is not in the public set.

The rider, as it would be served

Attached to the alternative motion to compel, and drafted so that a clerk can comply with it without discretion:

1. A complete, sequentially numbered list of every search warrant, tracking warrant, pen register, trap-and-trace order, administrative subpoena, grand-jury subpoena and preservation letter issued, applied for, or served by any agency in the investigation of the death of Charles James Kirk, from 10 September 2025 to the date of service. For each, state: the issuing court and judge, the warrant number, the date of application, the date of signature, the affiant by name and agency, the place or account to be searched, the items to be seized, and the date of return.
2. For each item on that list, a complete and legible copy of the application, the supporting affidavit and every attachment, the signed warrant, and the return and inventory.
3. For each of warrants 3216271, 3217031 and 3217131, the return and inventory that the public set records as not included, or a written statement that no return was filed and the reason.
4. Every warrant, order or consent instrument that authorised entry onto, or the search of, any part of the Utah Valley University campus on or after 10 September 2025 — specifically the Losee Center rooftop and building, the courtyard and amphitheatre, the area of the Fulton Library including the two bus stops, and the wooded area northeast of the Losee Center across Campus Drive.
5. Any written consent to search executed by Utah Valley University, by its police department, or by any officer or employee with authority over those areas, together with the name and title of the person who signed it and the time it was signed.
6. Every document authorising the removal, excavation, disposal or replacement of soil, sod, gravel or surface material from the courtyard area between 10 September 2025 and 30 September 2025, and the identity of the entity that performed that work.
7. The evidence log for each of the four scenes, showing every item recovered, the time of recovery, the person who recovered it, and the authority recorded for its seizure.
8. The transfer records for the rifle, the towel, the screwdriver, the cartridge case and the cartridges, from the point of recovery through the FBI to the ATF laboratory, including every chain-of-custody form and every federal receipt.
9. Every document authorising the seizure of clothing from members of the security detail, or from any person, at any hospital on 10 September 2025.
10. Any warrant issued in 2026 to Apple Inc. or to any other provider in this investigation, including the one that produced the approximately 170 GB return received 18 August 2026.

Day-one date: our attorney serves items 1 through 3 and 7 through 9 of that rider on 12 September 2025, the day of the initial appearance, and files the ex parte motion for a scene-preservation and inspection order on 13 September 2025. On 13 September the courtyard soil was still in the ground. The paving contractor's own account puts his "paver emergency" call on Sunday 14 September 2025, with the excavation already complete when he arrived, and the work to be finished by Monday. A preservation order served on the 13th lands one day before the ground is gone. That is the entire value of being on the case from the first appearance, and it is a window measured in hours.

The Honest Counterargument

The strongest objection is standing, and it may well be fatal to the suppression half of this motion. Under Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978), a defendant cannot vicariously assert somebody else's Fourth Amendment rights; he must show a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place searched. The person the State alleges was on the roof got there, on the State's account, by climbing over a wall onto a part of a public university building where no student has any business being. A rifle wrapped in a towel and left in bushes across a public street is the textbook picture of abandoned property, and abandoned property carries no expectation of privacy at all. A court could deny this motion in three paragraphs without ever reaching whether a warrant existed.

The exigency answer is also strong, and it is honest to say so. On 10 September 2025 nobody knew whether the campus held a second armed person. Officers cleared buildings. Sergeant Faumuina testified that the campus had to be made secure before any scene work could begin, that officers were canvassing for a suspect and checking whether anyone else was injured. Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006) — a Utah case — permits warrantless entry to render emergency aid, and a mass-casualty event at a public university is about as clear a case for it as exists. The initial entries were lawful.

Consent is a third complete answer. Utah Valley University owns the Losee Center, the courtyard and the library. A property owner with common authority may consent to a search of its own premises, and campus police are themselves a law-enforcement agency with routine access to the roofs of their own buildings. If UVU consented, no warrant was ever required and the absence of one from the public set means nothing whatever.

And the archive itself argues against over-reading the gap. We hold 374 PDFs against 867 known docket entries, of which only 258 ever had a public PDF at all. Warrants in this case were filed in a different court within the Fourth District and held under seal for six months as a matter of routine. A document missing from a collection this incomplete is a question, not a finding. Counsel of record hold the warrant inventory in discovery and have held it since 2025. They know whether a scene warrant exists. We do not, and we say so.

Finally: none of this is late. Suppression belongs after bind-over. The bind-over argument was heard on 1 September 2026. Nothing here has been forgone by anyone.

Sources On This Site

• Legal Documents Archive
• Preliminary Hearing — Day 4
• Sgt. Jennifer Faumuina
• Officer Chris Bagley
• Rifle Chain Of Custody
• Crime Scene Handling
• Gun Dropped Location
• Rifle Found After Federal Arrival
• Bagley Body Camera Gap
• 10 in. Of Dirt Removed
• Crime Scene Paving
• Site Changes And Crime Scene Handling
• Security Team Clothing Seized
• Scene Alteration And Spoliation
• Soil Excavation Subpoena
• Security Team Clothing
• Explosive Residue Testing
• FBI Agents On The Stand
• Discovery And Brady Disputes

---

:::danger Theoretical Exercise Only This page is a theoretical exercise. It is a written simulation of how an idealised defense attorney might approach this case. We make no claim that there is any problem with the current defense attorney, with any member of the defense team, or with any decision they have made.

Real capital defense is conducted under a gag order, with sealed filings, and on the basis of full discovery that the public has never seen. Counsel of record know facts we do not. A step described here as "not on the public record" may already have been taken privately, may have been considered and rejected for good reason, or may not yet be due at this stage of the case. Silence in the public record is not evidence of a failure.

Nothing here is legal advice, a criticism of any licensed attorney, or an allegation of professional misconduct. :::

This website's author is @HolonCitizen on X and YouTube/@HolonCitizen. Follow me there.