What do phone GPS/location data for Tyler Robinson show on the day of the incident in 2024/2025?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Public reporting does not publish a packet-by-packet or map-style dump of Tyler Robinson’s phone GPS/location pings for the day of the Utah Valley University shooting; instead, journalists and officials have described an evidence trail made up of surveillance video, vehicle tracking and investigators’ reconstruction of his movements rather than releasing raw cellphone-location logs to the public [1] [2]. Available coverage shows alleged movements to and around the UVU campus and a later surrender in Washington County, but none of the cited media reports or public statements present the raw phone-GPS data or a confirmable timeline of phone pings attributed directly to Robinson [1] [3] [2].
1. What the public reporting says about Robinson’s movements that day
Multiple outlets describe an alleged path that begins with Robinson driving from Washington, Utah, to the UVU event, being seen on video in the area where investigators say the shot came from, and then a subsequent 33-hour manhunt culminating in his surrender the next day [1] [2] [4]. Fox News published a reconstruction of where and how law enforcement tracked an “alleged path” across the UVU campus and noted a gray Dodge Challenger linked to Robinson’s family as the vehicle he reportedly drove that day [1]. The New York Times and Wikipedia-linked reporting point to a TMZ-posted video and a satellite view that investigators labeled “Seen in TMZ video,” which news organizations have used to place him near the scene [2]. Local and national outlets also report that Robinson surrendered to Washington County deputies after family members recognized him from news images [5] [6].
2. What has not been published: no public release of phone-GPS logs
Despite extensive coverage of surveillance clips, vehicle sightings and messaging cited in charging documents, none of the sources reviewed publish Robinson’s raw cellphone GPS logs, carrier location pings, or a court-filed affidavit displaying such data; where reporting references “tracking” it relies on investigators’ reconstructions rather than releasing underlying phone-location datasets to journalists or the public [1] [3] [2]. Public records requests for certain surveillance footage have turned up gaps—local reporting on possible missing video of his surrender shows what’s available can be incomplete, and the sheriff’s office said Robinson “did not go to or enter the jail area” in response to one request, underscoring limits in the public record [3].
3. How investigators appear to have corroborated timeline and location without publishing phone logs
Reporting indicates investigators used a mix of sources to build a timeline: surveillance and cellphone-era video (TMZ/NYT reference), vehicle registration/observations (the reported Dodge Challenger), witness statements and digital forensics referenced in charging documents such as text messages and other account records [1] [2] [7]. Prosecutors and police have cited messages and DNA evidence in filings, suggesting digital-device forensics informed the investigation even if the exact phone-GPS data were not released to media [8] [7]. Defense teams have asked for more time to review evidence, indicating material beyond what’s public — possibly including location records — is part of discovery but not yet disclosed [9].
4. Technical and evidentiary caveats when interpreting “phone GPS” claims
Even when phone-location data are used in investigations, they are imperfect: public reporting and experts note GPS, carrier pings and flight-tracking data can have gaps, spoofing or rural-area blind spots; FBI commentary about “incomplete flight data in rural areas” in an unrelated flight-theory debate highlights how apparent gaps can be technical rather than intentional [10], and broader reporting documents widespread GPS jamming/spoofing incidents that complicate interpretation of location signals [11] [12]. These technical realities mean that, absent the actual logs and chain-of-custody documentation, independently validating precise second-by-second phone locations from media summaries is not possible [11] [12].
5. Bottom line
Published reporting reconstructs Tyler Robinson’s alleged movements to the UVU rooftop area and his later surrender using surveillance video, vehicle sightings and investigative statements, but it does not publish or attribute raw phone GPS/location logs to him for the day of the incident; therefore, any claim about a definitive phone-ping timeline is not supported by the sources reviewed and remains a matter for investigators and court discovery rather than the public record [1] [2] [3].