Listen to the article
A newly filed lawsuit alleges that the Mecklenburg County Sheriff’s Office website has been publishing incorrect criminal charges on its inmate mugshot database, potentially causing lasting harm to those affected by the misinformation.
The legal action comes from Forsyth County resident Garrett Cobb, who claims the sheriff’s office mistakenly listed him with a more serious charge than he actually faced. According to court documents filed this week, Cobb was arrested in January on a misdemeanor charge of assault on a female, but the mugshot database incorrectly displayed that he had been charged with “assault by strangulation.”
Cobb’s attorney, Cheyenne Chambers, emphasized the significant difference between the charges, noting that assault by strangulation is a felony offense carrying much harsher potential penalties and social stigma. Despite Cobb’s efforts to have the error corrected, the lawsuit claims the incorrect information remained visible on the sheriff’s website for several days.
“These kinds of errors can follow someone for years, even after they’ve been corrected online,” said Chambers. “In the digital age, once information is published, it can be cached, screenshotted, or republished elsewhere, creating lasting damage to someone’s reputation.”
The Mecklenburg County Sheriff’s Office operates the database as a public information service, allowing residents to view current inmate populations and recent bookings. Such systems have become standard practice for law enforcement agencies across North Carolina and the nation, but they’ve also faced increasing scrutiny over accuracy and the long-term impacts on those arrested but not convicted.
Sheriff Garry McFadden’s office declined to comment specifically on the pending litigation when contacted, noting that they do not discuss active legal matters. However, a spokesperson stated that the office “takes information accuracy very seriously” and has protocols in place to verify the data published on their platforms.
The lawsuit seeks damages for Cobb, claiming harm to his reputation and emotional distress. It also asks the court to require the sheriff’s office to implement additional verification procedures before publishing charges to the public-facing database.
Legal experts note this case highlights the growing tension between transparency in the criminal justice system and the potential for lasting harm when errors occur.
“We’re seeing more litigation around mugshot databases and arrest information because the internet has fundamentally changed how this information persists,” said Charlotte-based attorney James Richardson, who specializes in media law but is not connected to this case. “What used to be buried in courthouse records or a single day’s newspaper is now permanently available and easily searchable.”
The timing of the lawsuit coincides with broader debates across North Carolina about mugshot policies. Several counties have revised their approaches in recent years, with some limiting mugshot publication to only certain offenses or implementing removal policies for cases that don’t result in convictions.
Civil liberties organizations have long advocated for more careful handling of pre-conviction information. The North Carolina ACLU has previously raised concerns about the “digital punishment” that can occur when arrest information remains accessible indefinitely, potentially affecting employment opportunities, housing applications, and personal relationships.
For Cobb, the lawsuit represents not just personal vindication but a push for systemic change. His legal team argues that simple verification procedures could prevent similar errors from affecting others in the future.
The case has been filed in Mecklenburg County Superior Court and is expected to proceed to initial hearings in the coming months. Legal observers note it could potentially establish precedent regarding the duty of care law enforcement agencies must exercise when publishing arrest information.
Meanwhile, the Mecklenburg County Sheriff’s Office continues to operate its inmate database, which processes hundreds of bookings monthly as one of the state’s busiest detention facilities.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
12 Comments
This is an important issue regarding the accuracy and impact of publicly available mugshot data. If the charges listed are indeed incorrect, that could unfairly harm someone’s reputation and future prospects.
You’re right, even minor errors in these records can have lasting consequences. I hope the lawsuit leads to better oversight and data integrity measures.
Inaccurate criminal record information is a serious problem that can ruin lives. I’m glad to see this being challenged through legal action.
Agreed, the stakes are high when it comes to publicly accessible mugshot data. Rigorous fact-checking and correction processes are needed.
The enduring impact of these kinds of errors in publicly accessible criminal record databases is troubling. I hope this lawsuit catalyzes much-needed reforms.
Absolutely. A person’s record should reflect the actual charges they faced, not exaggerated or mistaken information that can haunt them.
This case highlights the need for greater transparency and accountability around the collection and publication of mugshot data. Public records must be factually correct.
Absolutely. Misinformation in these databases can severely impact someone’s employment, housing, and other opportunities even after charges are cleared.
Mistaken criminal charges can haunt people for years, even after being cleared. I hope this lawsuit leads to meaningful reforms to protect individual rights and privacy.
Me too. The long-term consequences of even minor errors in these online records are deeply concerning and need to be addressed.
This is a concerning case that underscores the potential harms of sloppy record-keeping around mugshot data. Accuracy and due process must be priorities.
Agreed. With so much personal information now publicly available, extra care is needed to ensure it is factual and not misleading.