Thomas Dylan Miller Charged with Felony Stalking in Mecklenburg County
Thomas Dylan Miller faces felony stalking and misdemeanor charges in Mecklenburg County; the case is undecided and he is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
2 reports on this incident · first at Sep 7, 2026, 7:15 a.m. ET
Earlier reports
Sep 7, 2026, 7:15 a.m. ETFirst report
Catawba County Man Charged with Felony Stalking in Mecklenburg County; Case Not Yet Resolved
A Catawba County man has been charged with felony stalking and misdemeanor violation of a domestic violence protective order in Mecklenburg County, according to whky.com. The charges were announced on September 7, 2026. The case is at the charging stage and has not been resolved; the charges are allegations, and Miller is presumed innocent.
The government alleges that Thomas Dylan Miller made numerous attempts to contact a female victim despite a protective order being in place, including sending 38 text messages and calling her 13 times on one day, whky.com reported. The case is being investigated by the Catawba County Sheriff's Office.
Miller has been charged but not tried; the matter remains undecided.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 17 Sept 2026, 11:22current
First published.
- Version 17 Sept 2026, 11:15current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.