SMYRNA, Tenn. – A Smyrna Airport police officer recently misused the state’s Criminal Justice Portal, according to the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation.
Chris Sorey said he regrets misusing the system.
“I am very sorry that it’s caused any embarrassment or anything for anybody,” Sorey told NewsChannel 5.
Later in the story, Sorey explains that “he and his family noticed city vehicles cruising past his home. He took down tag numbers and ran them through the Criminal Justice Portal.”
You can read the rest of the story and watch the interview on the Channel 5 website.
Just one little logical problem with that scenario. The tag numbers on all city vehicles are going to come back as “owned by the City of Mt. Juliet.” The license tag information is not going to tell you anything about who the driver is, or give you his picture.
So, Sorey ran the names of individuals through the Criminal Justice Portal. He couldn’t have gotten the names by using the tag numbers on city vehicles. So where did he get the names? And what names did he run? Mr. Sorey has yet to tell the whole story.
14 Comments
December 2, 2008 at 11:18 pm
The piece says that the city may file a civil lawsuit against Sorey. Hmmmm. What grounds would the city have to sue him? The city isn’t a person, the city is an entity, and organization, so what did Chris Sorey do to the “City”?
It is obvious that the city is retaliating against Sorey when they make such stupid statements to the press . It is only a matter of time before this city self-destructs. You can’t keep shining a light on evil and not have it eventually tear itself apart. Chris went to the city to inform the city manager of the codes violations, he was ignored (wonder of wonders), he tried again, and was ignored yet again, he went to the commission, where he was ignored once or twice more, went to the media, and still no real action. Finally, it appears, after much public humiliation, the city finally may be taking this issue seriously, but they sure are going out of their way to try to cause as much harm to Sorey as they can.
I agree, he shouldn’t have abused his power, but the city’s lack of will to self-regulate and their will to pursue a citizen in this community speaks of their lack of professionalism and integrity. Now, if they would take citizens seriously and take appropriate action when they have done wrong, then they might have justification for enforcing the rest of the law, however, right now, they are merely retaliating against him.
BOooo
December 2, 2008 at 11:39 pm
On the Chanel 5 website they said: “but the city manager said it’s possible the city will file a civil lawsuit against him for the security breach.”
I don’t agree with breaking policies as they are there for a reason, but being the technical person I am, I have to point out that this is technically a Security Violation which is not the same thing as a Security Breach.
December 3, 2008 at 5:45 am
This whole deal was a fishing expedition by the city to find anything on me, and this is the only thing they could have found. The story was a little of the mark with the tags, but not a big deal. Robertson plans to make announcements regarding the fire codes issues and the civil suit is most likely to keep me from disputing anything he says. I gave them specific addresses, and they did nothing. They claimed to have conducted site visits in an email, but later told me that the homes were occupied so they did not go in or even contact any of the residents. That can be proven easily. What more could I have done? I have never spoken at a city meeting without first giving the information to Robertson. I wish I could go in to detail on this, but since he is threatening a civil suit, even though it is just a threat, I just can’t. I do believe strongly that this is just another way to keep me quiet, and while I have no choice but to stay quiet on this particular issue because of the “possible” civil suit, I will dispute any comments from the city that are not factual regarding fire issues or any other matter.
December 3, 2008 at 6:07 am
I have had the same problem with the city of Mt Juliet. My wife was fired after blowing the whistle on the abuse of a fellow employee. She was retaliated against
for almost a year and then fired. Randy Robertson (City Manager) knew all about this and did nothing. We have had the same city trucks pull up into our circle and stocking our home, I too as Mr Sorey have a small child. The reason I didn’t go to the police is because we’ve had a Mt Juliet police car stop in front of our
house and shine the spot light into our bedroom window at 2 in the morning. I now plan to go to the TBI for help. This is way beyond harrasment.
December 3, 2008 at 12:28 pm
It is a curiosity to me how the “city” could sue Chris Sorey for a security violation in such a situation? Did Chris Sorey look into the back- ground of the “City of Mt. Juliet”? I could understand it if Mr. Sorey looked into the background of a particular person and that person decided to sue, I think that would be justified, or at least justifiable, especially if Sorey leaked any information about that person, but for the city to sue him seems odd.
Following is a statute regarding threatening witnesses.
39-16-510. Retaliation for past action. —
(a) (1) A person commits the offense of retaliation for past action who harms or threatens to harm a witness at an official proceeding, judge, district attorney general, an assistant district attorney general, an employee of the district attorney general or a law enforcement officer, clerk, juror or former juror, or a family member of any such person, by any unlawful act in retaliation for anything the witness, judge, district attorney general, assistant district attorney general, employee of the district attorney general or a law enforcement officer, clerk, or juror did in an official capacity as witness, judge, district attorney general, assistant district attorney general, employee of the district attorney general or a law enforcement officer, clerk, or juror. The offense of retaliation for past action shall not apply to an employee of a clerk who harms or threatens to harm the clerk.
(2) For purposes of subdivision (a)(1), “family member” means the spouse, parent, grandparent, stepmother, stepfather, child, grandchild, brother, sister, half-brother, half-sister, adopted children of the parent, or the spouse’s parents.
(b) A violation of this section is a Class E felony.
[Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 1; 1990, ch. 980, § 29; 1998, ch. 882, § 1; 2000, ch. 953, § 1; 2004, ch. 818, § 1.]
Chris Sorey is a witness at an official proceeding. He is a witness at an official proceeding because he went to the microphone at a city commission meeting and made it publicly known that the city was not addressing the issues he brought to their attention.
If I were Randy Robertson, I would be very careful what I said about all of this. If the city has no cause to sue him, but Randy makes such a statement as an official for the city, especially as the administrative head of the city, he is putting the city in jeopardy of yet another lawsuit against the city. The law is very much on Chris Sorey’s side in all of this. For the city to successfully sue Chris, it (the city) would have to prove Chris somehow violated “the city”. Is there a violation because he looked up the license numbers on city owned vehicles? Okay, then Randy, please tell me why Chris would look up the license plates of city owned vehicles? I mean, wouldn’t he have known they were government vehicles by the license plate? It wouldn’t make sense that he would look up information on an employee based on government license plates, would it? What I have seen so far lends credence to Chris’ assertion or accusation that someone was stalking him and his family (Stalking is my word for what he said was happening, not his). If that is the case, aren’t we going into the anti-stalking law arena? Shouldn’t the city be investigating what Chris is saying? Isn’t that what the city attorney should be doing right now?
39-17-315. Stalking, aggravated stalking, and especially aggravated stalking. —
(a) As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires:
(1) “Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of two (2) or more separate noncontinuous acts evidencing a continuity of purpose;
(2) “Emotional distress” means significant mental suffering or distress that may, but does not necessarily, require medical or other professional treatment or counseling;
(3) “Harassment” means conduct directed toward a victim that includes, but is not limited to, repeated or continuing unconsented contact that would cause a reasonable person to suffer emotional distress, and that actually causes the victim to suffer emotional distress. Harassment does not include constitutionally protected activity or conduct that serves a legitimate purpose;
(4) “Stalking” means a willful course of conduct involving repeated or continuing harassment of another individual that would cause a reasonable person to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested, and that actually causes the victim to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested;
(5) “Unconsented contact” means any contact with another person that is initiated or continued without that person’s consent, or in disregard of that person’s expressed desire that the contact be avoided or discontinued. Unconsented contact includes, but is not limited to, any of the following:
(A) Following or appearing within the sight of that person;
(B) Approaching or confronting that person in a public place or on private property;
(C) Appearing at that person’s workplace or residence;
(D) Entering onto or remaining on property owned, leased, or occupied by that person;
(E) Contacting that person by telephone;
(F) Sending mail or electronic communications to that person; or
(G) Placing an object on, or delivering an object to, property owned, leased, or occupied by that person; and
(6) “Victim” means an individual who is the target of a willful course of conduct involving repeated or continuing harassment.
(b) (1) A person commits an offense who intentionally engages in stalking.
(2) Stalking is a Class A misdemeanor.
(c) (1) A person commits aggravated stalking who commits the offense of stalking as prohibited by subsection (b), and:
(A) In the course and furtherance of stalking, displays a deadly weapon;
(B) The victim of the offense was less than eighteen (18) years of age at any time during the person’s course of conduct, and the person is five (5) or more years older than the victim;
(C) Has previously been convicted of stalking within seven (7) years of the instant offense;
(D) Makes a credible threat to the victim, the victim’s child, sibling, spouse, parent or dependents with the intent to place any such person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury; or
(E) At the time of the offense, was prohibited from making contact with the victim under a restraining order or injunction for protection, an order of protection, or any other court-imposed prohibition of conduct toward the victim or the victim’s property, and the person knowingly violates the injunction, order or court-imposed prohibition.
(2) Aggravated stalking is a Class E felony.
(d) (1) A person commits especially aggravated stalking who:
(A) Commits the offense of stalking or aggravated stalking, and has previously been convicted of stalking or aggravated stalking involving the same victim of the instant offense; or
(B) Commits the offense of aggravated stalking, and intentionally or recklessly causes serious bodily injury to the victim of the offense or to the victim’s child, sibling, spouse, parent or dependent.
(2) Especially aggravated stalking is a Class C felony.
(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if the court grants probation to a person convicted of stalking, aggravated stalking or especially aggravated stalking, the court may keep the person on probation for a period not to exceed the maximum punishment for the appropriate classification of offense. Regardless of whether a term of probation is ordered, the court may, in addition to any other punishment otherwise authorized by law, order the defendant to do the following:
(1) Refrain from stalking any individual during the term of probation;
(2) Refrain from having any contact with the victim of the offense or the victim’s child, sibling, spouse, parent or dependent;
(3) Be evaluated to determine the need for psychiatric, psychological, or social counseling, and, if determined appropriate by the court, to receive psychiatric, psychological or social counseling at the defendant’s own expense;
(4) If, as the result of such treatment or otherwise, the defendant is required to take medication, order that the defendant submit to drug testing or some other method by which the court can monitor whether the defendant is taking the required medication; and
(5) Submit to the use of an electronic tracking device, with the cost of the device and monitoring the defendant’s whereabouts, to be paid by the defendant.
(f) In a prosecution for a violation of this section, evidence that the defendant continued to engage in a course of conduct involving repeated unconsented contact with the victim after having been requested by the victim to discontinue the conduct or a different form of unconsented contact, and to refrain from any further unconsented contact with the victim, is prima facie evidence that the continuation of the course of conduct caused the victim to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested.
(g) (1) If a person is convicted of aggravated or especially aggravated stalking, or another felony offense arising out of a charge based on this section, the court may order an independent professional mental health assessment of the defendant’s need for mental health treatment. The court may waive the assessment, if an adequate assessment was conducted prior to the conviction.
(2) If the assessment indicates that the defendant is in need of and amenable to mental health treatment, the court may include in the sentence a requirement that the offender undergo treatment, and that the drug intake of the defendant be monitored in the manner best suited to the particular situation. Monitoring may include periodic determinations as to whether the defendant is ingesting any illegal controlled substances, as well as determinations as to whether the defendant is complying with any required or recommended course of treatment that includes the taking of medications.
(3) The court shall order the offender to pay the costs of assessment under this subsection (g), unless the offender is indigent under § 40-14-202.
(h) Any person who reasonably believes they are a victim of an offense under this section, regardless of whether the alleged perpetrator has been arrested, charged or convicted of a stalking-related offense, shall be entitled to seek and obtain an order of protection in the same manner, and under the same circumstances, as is provided for victims of domestic abuse by the provisions of title 36, chapter 3, part 6.
(i) When a person is charged and arrested for the offense of stalking, aggravated stalking or especially aggravated stalking, the arresting law enforcement officer shall inform the victim that the person arrested may be eligible to post bail for the offense and to be released until the date of trial for the offense.
(j) If a law enforcement officer or district attorney general believes that the life of a possible victim of stalking is in immediate danger, unless and until sufficient evidence can be processed linking a particular person to the offense, the district attorney general may petition the judge of a court of record having criminal jurisdiction in that district to enter an order expediting the processing of any evidence in a particular stalking case. If, after hearing the petition, the court is of the opinion that the life of the victim may be in immediate danger if the alleged perpetrator is not apprehended, the court may enter such an order, directed to the Tennessee bureau of investigation, or any other agency or laboratory that may be in the process of analyzing evidence for that particular investigation.
(k) (1) For purposes of determining if a course of conduct amounting to stalking is a single offense or multiple offenses, the occurrence of any of the following events breaks the continuous course of conduct, with respect to the same victim, that constitutes the offense:
(A) The defendant is arrested and charged with stalking, aggravated stalking or especially aggravated stalking;
(B) The defendant is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to have violated an order of protection issued to prohibit the defendant from engaging in the conduct of stalking; or
(C) The defendant is convicted of the offense of stalking, aggravated stalking or especially aggravated stalking.
(2) If a continuing course of conduct amounting to stalking engaged in by a defendant against the same victim is broken by any of the events set out in subdivision (k)(1), any such conduct that occurs after that event commences a new and separate offense.
[Acts 1992, ch. 795, § 1; 1993, ch. 435, § 1; 1995, ch. 378, § 1; 2005, ch. 482, § 1.]
Chris should invite a lawsuit at this point: “Please big brown bear, don’t throw me in that briar patch”. Remember, there is a city employee who had physical harm caused to her by a person working for a developer in this city. That woman is now suing the city over that issue. Chris has brought negative attention to at least one, if not more than one, developers’ doorstep in this city, as well as to the doorstep of this city government. Did you ever wonder “why” the city didn’t more fervently pursue what Chris Sorey brought to their attention? It is rumored that there are city employees who are “on the take” with certain developers in this city, could that rumor be true? Are there things we should know about? Are there things the city is keeping hush-hush? Is there information out there that we don’t know about that would help the city employee’s case in the lawsuit against the city? Is it unreasonable to believe Chris’ story that he had city vehicles going up and down the street in front of his house? Folks, I think I know where Chris lives, if I am right, there is no reason for city vehicles to be traveling up and down his street, especially on a continuous basis, unless of course they are harassing him and his family. I believe Chris lives on a short cul-de-sac, in Willoughby Station. There is no construction happening on his street, nothing for the city to look at, so what would be the cause for them to cruise by his house? If they only went past his house once and made no overt gestures, he might be a little paranoid, but remember, he was a law enforcement agent, he would probably know the difference between a chance passing by a city vehicle and a harassing effort by a city employee.
Unless the “City” has a background on the Criminal Justice Portal, how could he have violated the city? Would it be because he looked up the information of a city employee? If that is the case then it would stand to reason that any company that employees a person who has their information looked up illegally using the criminal justice portal could sue as well, right? I don’t think that is the case, but I could be wrong.
Don’t get me wrong, I think it was wrong for Chris to improperly use the Criminal Justice Portal, and I am not defending Chris on a personal level…I don’t even like Chris on a personal level…however, government should not be allowed to do the things it is doing in this case and get away with it. Chris no longer works as a law enforcement agent, he has moved on, the district attorney general of that county decided not to press charges, and yet this city is threatening lawsuit against Chris, good luck with your new position, Chris. (All that having been said, Chris, if I find that you lied to me and you actually did look up my information…..)
Now, let’s put this in context.
Mayor Elam runs for County Mayor. Fails. Later she calls Bobby Franklin to try to get him to remove a condition on the Mt. Juliet Crossings property from the technical review committee’s agenda, Bobby is upset from that call and tells the City Manager he may need help with the Mayor on this one because she is pushing him so hard, later we find out that she secretly went to work for the developer of the Mt. Juliet Crossings development and that he and people surrounding him donated significant amounts of money toward Linda Elam’s campaign for county mayor and that she was calling Bobby Franklin under color of office, later, the Mayor calls a meeting in an attempt to get what would be illegal building permits for Pulte Homes, she is denied her request, later we find out that Chris Ryan of Pulte homes had made an offer to give the city an additional six figures to put toward a ladder truck (fire truck) for the city if she could get his company those permits (who was the only developer at that time who could have used a ladder truck….you guessed it, Linda’s employer), we also later find out that Linda was embarrassed by Hatton Wright in that meeting and that she demanded a public apology from him, she didn’t get her apology and soon, practically everyone in that meeting with her and Pulte Homes is fired or pushed out of government service in one form or fashion, except…..Marlin Keel, who was the only person who didn’t return damaging testimony against Linda during an investigation into a complaint brought against Linda by Hatton Wright…what did Marlin get? A new job as the public works director with a fat raise (Linda was pushing to get him more money than even the city manager was going to make that year!), we hear of many things, some possibly true, some possibly not true, but, if you were Chris, and you were exposing what is going on in this city, and you knew of the behavior of some of these characters, and you had city vehicles going up and down your street, how would you feel?
I can personally tell you, it isn’t easy to stand up for what you believe in this environment. I have been doing it here in Mt. Juliet for a long time now, and I can tell you first hand, it takes some courage. They hold a lot of power in their hands, especially when they can get away with operating in secret as they do, so you never know what might happen next. Randy says in the interview that Chris never filed a complaint with the police department. Folks, they are using the police department to go after Chris! Besides, the city leadership ignores everything you tell them anyway. The Police Chief has a job to do, and if credible evidence came to his attention that Chris had done something wrong he has a duty and an obligation to pursue it and get to the bottom of it, but the same holds true for everything. In other words, the Police Chief, if he has such an obligation regarding Chris, he also has an obligation regarding the city manager, the city attorney, the Mayor, the commissioners, and everyone else. Nobody is above the law. Hey Chief, if you want to see something worth looking at check out the e-mail traffic between the commissioners. Every time they pass e-mails between each other regarding matters before the city they are violating the law. Every time they get together and talk about matters before the city outside a properly called public meeting they are violating the law. It will be a full-time job for at least one or two police officers just following up on the laws the commission breaks.
Overturn an election…no harm, no foul.
Extend professional courtesy….no harm, no foul.
Illegally force people out of office…no harm, no foul.
File false allegations against a man and publicly humiliate him and cause him to resign…no harm, no foul.
Physically harm a city employee…no harm, no foul.
Fire a city employee under knowingly false terms…no harm, no foul.
Steal land from local developers…no harm, no foul.
Try to use tax-payer money to give a gift to the YMCA…no harm, no foul.
Try to illegally use bond funds…no harm, no foul.
Harass citizens and city employees…no harm, no foul.
Replace the planning attorney with a full-time attorney because you want to consolidate and save money, the same planning attorney who returned unflattering testimony against the mayor during an investigation, then, once you have a full-time attorney have him spend all his time on the YMCA boondoggle and hire a part-time planning attorney…no harm, no foul.
Look up someone’s information on the Criminal Justice Portal…off with his head!
Chris, dare them to sue you; discovery in that case would be very interesting.
December 3, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Well put on all levels Butch. While I certainly haven’t changed my opinion on the original topic, this whole event has shed a more public light on just how bad the city administration is. I can’t see any possible way the city could file a lawsuit. I think Chris needs to go to the TBI and file a complaint against the city for the 39-16-510 statute that you mention above.
December 3, 2008 at 3:27 pm
mdcole,
It gets worse. If you file a complaint with the TBI they won’t do anything about it because General Thompson will not get involved in the politics of Mt. Juliet. I have been there and done that personally. I filed a complaint with the Governor of the State of Tennessee regarding the issues that are going on in this city. He sent it to the TBI for response and review. It went nowhere. I called the TBI and talked to the person who was originally given the complaint only to find out that that person had a “personal” difference (not a professional difference….I believe I was talking to a liberal) with me. I then asked to speak to someone in charge, who agreed with what I was saying and who stated that I was right, but that because General Thompson won’t get involved in the politics of Mt. Juliet, there was no reason to investigate because General Thompson has to prosecute if they find something, and since he won’t prosecute, there was no sense in conducting an investigation.
The FBI isn’t interested in dealing with local governments.
The TBI won’t investigate
The District Attorney General won’t prosecute.
If you got to the Grand Jury they turn the investigation, or at least the findings of the investigation, over to the District Attorney, General Thompson.
You can sue them in Chancery Court, but you better have a lot of money and be willing to lose it.
The commission won’t regulate itself.
They passed an new ethics ordinance that basically makes it impossible for you and I to get involved in the process because we actually have to witness the unethical behavior personally and we have to file our complaint within thirty days of the violation or we can no longer file a complaint.
The commission itself appointed the members of the city’s ethics commission, so what do you think the odds are that they would actually conduct a proper investigation?
If you make waves for those in power you end up being investigate, harassed, and ridiculed.
mdcole, you are just waking up to what has been a very long train of abuse in this city. Welcome to the party.
December 3, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Thanks Butch. I’m a relative newcomer to the county in general (lived here almost a year now), and have been trying to get up to speed at the county level, since I live outside the city. I’ve certainly heard about the city’s abusiveness, but haven’t gotten caught up in it until this issue. I wish I lived in the city limits, so I could run for city office and try to make changes from within. Sadly, being an outsider I’m relegated to cheerleading from the sideline on city issues, and hoping I won’t get a ticket everytime I drive through town. If they won’t take city residents seriously, there’s no reason for me to even attempt to get more involved. For those that live in the city, keep up the good fight! Do you know how much longer Thompson has in his term as DA, sounds like that’s where we need to start. If we get a qualified candidate who will look into the city affairs, we need to try and get them elected.
December 3, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Didn’t we vote for Home Rule in 2006 so that no changes could be made without the voters being involved?
Would their changing the ethics ordinance without having voter approval be against the Home Rule we voted in?
December 3, 2008 at 10:02 pm
Lori,
The ethics ordinance isn’t a part of the city charter, therefore since we haven’t voted that they can’t change the ethics ordinance without a referendum, they can change it all they want….unfortunately.
Perhaps we need to have a citizen elected ethics commission rather than a city commission appointed ethics commission. And perhaps we should give them some sort of prosecutorial powers so that they are somewhat feared by this board of commissioners. Finally, perhaps then we would be able to get some justice in this city.
Power to the people.
December 4, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Can’t you go to the TBI website and get background checks on anybody you want?
I went to the site last night and all you had to do was pay $29 and have a name and birthdate….
am I mistaken?
December 4, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Nathan,
I don’t know what you can and what you can’t get from that TBI website, I haven’t tried. Regardless of what you can or can’t get at that website, it is still a violation to misuse the Criminal Justice Portal.
Time will only tell what will come of all of this. It will probably be difficult for anyone to get a judgement against Chris, but that doesn’t mean what he did was right. I don’t know what I would have done if I had been in his shoes, but I do know that had I misused the system I would have had to take the punishment for having done so.
Was there really someone stalking Chris? Who knows?
Did Chris just go on the site and start looking at the background of people he had issues with? Who knows?
Did Chris find out something about someone and make it public? I don’t know.
There are a lot of unknowns, but what is known is that he didn’t have authorization to use that system the way he did. If he has to face consequences for his actions then that is the price he will have to pay. However, that is not to say that if he had cause to look up the information of people that there can’t be grace and mercy in all of this. At the same time there has to be repentance.
December 7, 2008 at 5:58 pm
[...] Promoted from Radio Free Mt. Juliet. [...]
December 8, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Saw the illustrious 32% of the vote mayor on the news tonight calling for Mr. Sorey’s resignation from his county office seat because, according to her, something he did before he was elected now makes him unfit to hold public office. What about all of the stuff she’s done while in office that makes her unfit to hold the position? Her conflicts of interest, her lies, her retaliatory orders, her illegal meetings…she somehow thinks all of this has no effect on her fitness for office.
As a home rule community, our first course of action should be amending the city’s charter to implement a mayoral runoff between the top two candidates receiving the most votes whenever any one candidate fails to obtain at least 51% of the vote.