A dispute over the handling of sensitive municipal electronic records has led to a civil rights and whistleblower-retaliation lawsuit against local government officials, raising concerns about transparency and accountability in the administration of public records. The complaint was filed by Christopher Lee in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina on March 4, 2026, naming as defendants the Town of Mooresville, Chief Ron Campurciani (in both official and individual capacities), Town Manager Tracey Jerome (in both official and individual capacities), Chris Carney (in his individual capacity), and Chris Quinn (in his individual capacity).
According to the complaint, Lee served as the Director of Innovation and Technology for the Town of Mooresville. He alleges that he was not terminated for performance issues but was instead pressured to resign after refusing to participate in what he describes as efforts by senior town leadership to suppress, conceal, misclassify, restrict access to, or manipulate municipal electronic records. These records reportedly included surveillance footage documenting an incident involving Mayor Chris Carney inside Town Hall.
The filing details that on or about October 10, 2024, town surveillance cameras captured Mayor Carney entering Town Hall after midnight with an adult woman who was allegedly not authorized to be present after hours. Electronic systems recorded credentialed entry by the mayor, multiple overnight motion-detection activations, alarm events, and a law-enforcement response. The CCTV footage is described as showing “Mayor Carney in a state of partial or complete undress,” which plaintiff claims contradicts public explanations given for the incident.
Lee states that he elevated these findings immediately to senior town leadership—including Town Manager Tracey Jerome and Town Attorney Sharon Crawford—and attended meetings where officials reviewed the footage together. Despite this corroborating evidence from multiple municipal systems, Lee alleges that no independent investigation or ethics inquiry was initiated; instead, officials minimized the incident internally by labeling it a “false alarm.” The complaint asserts that “the central issue for Town leadership was not whether evidence existed, but who controlled it,” emphasizing Lee’s role as custodian over digital records.
The lawsuit further outlines that Lee resisted directives—both explicit and implied—to limit access to or obscure audit trails related to this evidence. He refused requests to delete or alter footage or logs: “Plaintiff refused to delete, alter, misclassify, conceal…or otherwise manipulate any electronic evidence.” Instead, he insisted on compliance with town policy regarding preservation and accessibility for lawful process such as subpoenas or court orders.
Lee contends that his refusal placed him at odds with senior leadership whose objective became controlling access to potentially damaging material. Shortly thereafter—according to Lee—his authority was undermined; he faced escalating scrutiny; his conduct was reframed as problematic; and a disciplinary process began which ultimately pressured him into resignation under threat of termination.
The complaint situates Lee’s experience within what it describes as a broader pattern in Mooresville: employees with knowledge of politically sensitive electronic evidence are targeted for discipline rather than misconduct being investigated. It references similar lawsuits filed by Jeffrey Noble (a former IT employee) and Frank Falzone (former Assistant Chief of Police), both alleging retaliation after raising concerns about handling digital evidence related to incidents involving senior officials.
Lee’s legal arguments cite violations under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution as well as protections under federal law including 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He claims deprivation of due process rights associated with his employment status and asserts that retaliatory actions were taken intentionally by decision-makers aware of his protected conduct.
The plaintiff seeks relief including compensatory damages for loss of employment income and benefits, damage to professional reputation, emotional distress, declaratory judgment affirming his rights under federal law, prospective injunctive relief against future retaliation or improper record handling practices by town officials if applicable statutes are found relevant.
No judge is named explicitly in this portion of the filing provided. Attorneys’ names are also not listed in this excerpt. The case is identified as Case No.: 5:26-cv-00047.
Source: 526cv00047_Lee_v_Town_of_Mooresville_Complaint_Western_District_North_Carolina.pdf
