Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Order Of Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judge extends protective order after testimony and recordings of threats, admitted tracking
Summary
A chancery judge found sufficient evidence of stalking and threats and extended an order of protection for Joy Mitchell, limiting direct contact while allowing supervised social contact at family events; the husband admitted once using an AirTag and sending harassing voice messages. The judge invited an attorney-fee application from the petitioner.
A Cheatham County Chancery judge extended an order of protection for Joy Mitchell on grounds the court found established by testimony, recorded voice mails and phone records.
The hearing centered on a series of phone messages and other evidence the petitioner played for the court. Joy Mitchell testified that she received repeated voice mails, "the last one said he wanted me dead," and played recordings the court admitted for the protection petition. In cross-examination the husband, Keith Mitchell, acknowledged he had placed an AirTag on the car in December (testifying "I did in December '25 '24") and later left multiple harassing voice mails that he said he now regretted.
The judge explained the legal standard for an order of protection and pointed to two critical elements: the repeated, vile language in the June voice mails and Keith Mitchell’s admitted prior tracking of his wife's vehicle. "I can understand why she would be in fear for her sake. I think a reasonable person would," the judge said when announcing the court's finding that the stalking and threats established a basis for protection.
The court extended the protection order and tailored it to allow "social contact" at family events — permitting the husband to attend grandson birthday parties so long as there is no direct physical contact or conversation with the petitioner. The order also forbids any direct or indirect messages; the court instructed that any necessary communications must go through counsel or other court-approved channels. The judge noted the criminal statute on electronic tracking (Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-606) and observed the stalking allegation was supported by the husband's own testimony that he would have continued tracking if not confronted.
The petitioner's counsel asked for attorney's fees related to the protection petition; the judge said counsel may submit an application and that the court would consider it as part of the record. The court closed the hearing by reminding both parties that violations of the protective order carry legal consequences and emphasizing the limits on direct contact.
Provenance: transcript segments from the order-of-protection hearing were admitted into the record and heard at length (topicintro: SEG 1520; topfinish: SEG 3696).
Speakers quoted or referenced (whitelist): Joy Mitchell (petitioner), Keith Mitchell (respondent), Chair (presiding judge), Counsel for petitioner.
