Federal prosecutors have asked a judge in Amarillo to issue a protective order that would restrict how evidence is shared in the ongoing case against 18-year-old Kevin Hunt, the Canyon man accused of plotting an attack on a Fourth of July celebration. The request, filed Monday in Amarillo Federal Court, seeks to safeguard a large collection of sensitive and personal data as investigators continue to examine potential co-conspirators and digital communications linked to the case.
Hunt, who was indicted in September on a federal charge of attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction, faces several related state charges filed in Randall County a month later. Those include possession of components of explosives, attempted capital murder of multiple persons, and terrorism.
Authorities allege Hunt intended to carry out a violent attack targeting Canyon’s annual Independence Day festivities. He was first detained on July 2 on an emergency mental health warrant after officials reportedly raised concerns that he might harm himself or others. Days later, on July 11, he was formally charged with possession of explosive materials.
Since then, the investigation has widened, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office has continued to examine Hunt’s alleged online communications and activities. Prosecutors noted in Monday’s filing that they are still looking into possible “unindicted coconspirators” who may have interacted with Hunt through online platforms.
Protecting Sensitive Evidence
The federal government’s motion asks for a protective order that would allow prosecutors to share evidence—known in legal terms as discovery—with Hunt’s defense team while keeping personal and confidential information shielded from the public.
The evidence in question, according to prosecutors, is “voluminous and fraught with personally identifying and other confidential information (PII).” It includes material gathered from electronic devices, grand jury subpoenas, and online communications, as well as documents containing social security numbers, dates of birth, juvenile records, and witness information.
In most criminal cases, evidence is turned over to the defense after being redacted—that is, stripped of sensitive information. But prosecutors argued that the scope of the material in Hunt’s case makes that process “overly burdensome and may not be entirely possible.”
The U.S. Attorney’s Office warned that even a meticulous redaction process might fail to remove every instance of confidential data or, conversely, might obscure details that Hunt’s lawyers need to prepare a fair defense. Without the protective order, prosecutors said, they would be forced either to undergo a lengthy redaction process or to restrict access by requiring defense attorneys to view materials only in government offices.
The motion seeks to avoid those delays while maintaining privacy protections.
Terms of the Proposed Protective Order
The government’s filing lays out a set of disclosure rules that would govern how evidence is handled once shared with Hunt’s defense team. Under the proposed order:
The evidence cannot be copied except for trial exhibits or working copies for defense counsel.
Materials cannot be shared outside of the defense office with anyone not employed there.
Hunt himself would not be allowed to keep the materials, though his attorneys could show them to him during meetings.
Neither Hunt nor anyone acting on his behalf could distribute or discuss the materials outside the courtroom or with anyone not directly involved in the case.
Any attorney who withdraws from representing Hunt would remain bound by the order unless excused by the court.
According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, these restrictions would let prosecutors share the evidence “through a secure electronic file exchange” while keeping personal and investigative information out of public circulation.
The motion also states that Hunt’s defense team does not oppose the proposed order. If granted, the arrangement could expedite the evidence-sharing process and help move the case toward trial.
Continuing Investigation
The protective order request highlights that the investigation into Hunt’s alleged plans remains active. Prosecutors referenced the potential involvement of other individuals who may have communicated with Hunt online, suggesting that authorities are continuing to comb through electronic data for possible connections.
Investigators have already collected a significant amount of digital evidence, including online communications, device data, and records obtained through federal subpoenas. Much of this material reportedly contains information related to juveniles, witnesses, and potential co-conspirators—further underscoring the need for careful handling.
Federal prosecutors have not disclosed whether any additional arrests or indictments are expected, but their filing makes clear that the case is far from concluded.
Mental Health Evaluation
Court documents from earlier this month show that Hunt was ordered to undergo a 30-day psychiatric or psychological evaluation beginning October 1. The purpose of the evaluation is twofold: to determine whether Hunt is mentally competent to stand trial and whether he was suffering from a mental health condition at the time of the alleged crimes.
Competency evaluations are a routine step in serious criminal cases where there are concerns about a defendant’s ability to understand the proceedings or assist in their own defense. If a court determines that Hunt is not competent, his trial could be delayed until he receives appropriate treatment.
So far, no results from the evaluation have been made public.
Balancing Transparency and Security
Protective orders like the one requested in Hunt’s case are not uncommon in complex criminal prosecutions involving terrorism, explosive materials, or large quantities of digital evidence. They allow both sides to access necessary information while preventing the release of personal data, ongoing investigative details, or sensitive security information.
Legal experts say such orders strike a balance between a defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial and the government’s duty to protect privacy and ongoing investigations.
In practical terms, the order would allow prosecutors to hand over files more quickly—without months of line-by-line redactions—while ensuring that private details about witnesses, victims, or unrelated parties are not exposed.
If approved by the court, the order would mark an important procedural step toward preparing the case for trial. It could also signal that federal prosecutors are moving closer to presenting their full evidence against Hunt.
The Road Ahead
As of late October, no trial date has been set in either federal or state court. Hunt remains in custody while both his mental health evaluation and the government’s evidence review continue.
The Canyon community, meanwhile, remains watchful as details of the case unfold. The alleged plot—which prosecutors say targeted one of the region’s most popular Independence Day events—has stirred both concern and gratitude among residents for the law enforcement agencies that intervened before any violence occurred.
Federal officials have not publicly detailed what type of weapon or device Hunt is accused of attempting to construct, though the indictment’s reference to a “weapon of mass destruction” typically refers to explosives or chemical agents under federal law.
Once the protective order is approved, Hunt’s defense team will gain access to the evidence in its full, unredacted form under the strict confidentiality terms outlined by the court. That process could shed more light on what investigators found during their search and how they believe the alleged plot was intended to unfold.
