
Sonya Massey shooting prompts Illinois law requiring disclosure of police recruits' backgrounds
Gov. JB Pritzker on Tuesday signed the legislation, which requires disclosure of everything from job performance reports to nonpublic settlement agreements. It resulted from indiscretions that came to light in the background of Sean Grayson, the ex-sheriff's deputy charged with first-degree murder in the case.
Pritzker, surrounded by Massey's family in the state Capitol, said the first-in-the-nation law should serve as an example for other states as he let Massey's 'spirit guide us to action.'
'Our justice system needs to be built on trust,' the Democrat said. 'Communities should be able to trust that when they call the police to their home, the responding officer will be well-trained and without a history of bias or misconduct, and police officers should be able to trust that they are serving alongside responsible and capable individuals.'
The legislation was sponsored by Sen. Doris Turner, a Springfield Democrat and friend of the Masseys, and Chicago Democratic Rep. Kam Buckner, who noted that Thursday marks the 117th anniversary of the three-day Race Riot in Springfield that led to the founding a year later of the NAACP.
Who is Sonya Massey?
Massey, 36, was a single mother of two teenagers who had a strong religious faith and struggled with mental health issues. In the early morning of July 6, 2024, she called 911 to report a suspected prowler outside her home in the capital city of Springfield, 201 miles (343 kilometers) southwest of Chicago.
Grayson and another deputy searched but found no one. Inside Massey's house, confusion over a pot of hot water Massey picked up and her curious response to Grayson — 'I rebuke you in the name of Jesus' — which the deputy said he took to mean she wanted to kill him, prompted him to fire on Massey, hitting her right below the eye.
What prompted the legislation?
The 31-year-old Grayson was 14 months into his career as a Sangamon County Sheriff's deputy when he answered Massey's call. His arrest two weeks later prompted an examination of his record, which showed several trouble spots.
In his early 20s, he was convicted of driving under the influence twice within a year, the first of which got him kicked out of the Army. He had four law enforcement jobs — mostly part-time — in six years. One past employer noted that he was sloppy in handling evidence and called him a braggart. Others said he was impulsive.
What does the law require?
Those seeking policing jobs must sign a waiver allowing past employers to release unredacted background materials, including job performance reports, physical and psychological fitness-for-duty reports, civil and criminal court records, and, even otherwise nonpublic documents such as nondisclosure or separation agreements.
'It isn't punitive to any police officer. The same kind of commonsense legislation needs to be done nationwide,' James Wilburn, Massey's father, said. 'People should not be able to go from department to department and their records not follow them.'
The hiring agency may see the contents of documents sealed by court order by getting a judge's approval, and court action is available to compel a former employer to hand over records.
'Several departments need to pick up their game and implement new procedures, but what's listed here (in the law) is what should be minimally done in a background check,' said Kenny Winslow, executive director of the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police, who helped negotiate the proposal.
Would the law have prevented Grayson's hiring?
Ironically, no. Most of what was revealed about Grayson after his arrest was known to Sangamon County Sheriff Jack Campbell, who was forced to retire early because of the incident. Campbell was aware of Grayson's shortcomings and, as a result, made him repeat the state's 16-week police training course.
Even an incident that didn't surface until six weeks after the shooting — a dash-cam video of Grayson, working as a deputy in a nearby county, ignoring an order to halt a high-speed chase and then hitting a deer with his squad car — would not have disqualified him, Campbell said at the time.
'We can't decide who they do or don't hire, but what we can do is put some parameters in place so that the information will be there and the right decision can be made,' Buckner said.
What's next?
Grayson, who also faces charges of aggravated battery with a firearm and official misconduct, has pleaded not guilty and is scheduled to go to trial in October.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Newsweek
6 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Ted Cruz Wants Democratic Wipeout in Texas Over Newsom's California Plan
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. U.S. Senator Ted Cruz proposed that Texas extend the state's Republican advantage in the U.S. House of Representatives to a full Democratic wipeout if California Governor Gavin Newsom goes through with his plan to gerrymander seats. Newsom, a Democrat, has threatened to proceed with redistricting California so that his party has a majority in the U.S. House, and he urged President Donald Trump to stop Republican-governed states from redistricting, such as in Texas. Texas Democrats are thwarting a redistricting effort by state Republicans that, based on the previous election's results, could add five seats for the GOP in the U.S. House. They fled Texas to prevent the necessary quorum in the state legislature. "If California gerrymanders from its current 43-9 Dem advantage (83%) to a 52-0 Dem advantage (100%)... ...then Texas should go from a 24-14 GOP advantage (63%) to 38-0 (100%)," Cruz, a Republican, posted to X on Thursday morning. This is a breaking news story. Updates to follow.


UPI
an hour ago
- UPI
Illinois judge rejects Texas' request to enforce arrest warrants in map row
A judge in Illinois on Wednesday denied Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's request to enforce civil arrest warrants for Democrats who fled the Lone Star State. Pool File Photo by Justin Lane/UPI | License Photo Aug. 14 (UPI) -- A federal judge in Illinois has rejected Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's request to enforce arrest warrants for Democrats who fled the Lone Star State earlier this month to block Republican redistricting plans. Paxton has filed a slew of lawsuits in the nearly two weeks since state Democrats left Texas early this month to deny Republicans quorum to pass controversial redistricting maps that will give the GOP five extra seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. The Democrats went to Democratic strongholds, including Illinois, and Texas state House Speaker Dustin Burrows issued civil arrest warrants to force their return to Texas. On Aug. 7, Paxton and Burrows filed a lawsuit seeking Illinois to enforce the return of the Democratic lawmakers. In his ruling Wednesday, Illinois Judge Scott Larson rejected the Texans' request, stating it is outside his court's jurisdiction to compel the Democrats' return. "This Illinois circuit court, under a petition to show cause, does not have the inherent power to direct Illinois law enforcement officers, or to allow the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House of Representatives of the State of Texas, or any officers appointed by her, to execute Texas civil Quorum Warrants upon nonresidents temporarily located in the State of Illinois," Larson said in his ruling, which was obtained by Democracy Docket and a portion of which was published on BluSky. The warrants issued by the Texas House of Representatives are "geographically limited," Larson said. Paxton and Burrows have yet to comment on the ruling, which marks a blow in their efforts to compel Democrats to return to the state. Congressional redistricting generally occurs every decade following the publication of U.S. Census Bureau data. Texas has taken the unusual step to redraw its maps at the urging of President Donald Trump ahead of midterm elections next year The maps are expected to produce an additional five GOP districts in the U.S. House of Representatives where the Republicans hold a narrow 219 to 212 majority. Critics and Democrats accuse the Republicans of conducting a power grab in an attempt to rig control over the ongressional branch, and have backed their Texas colleagues who have left their home state to prevent the passing of the maps during the special session. Democrats in other states have also come to their support, and California Gov. Gavin Newsom has vowed to respond by redistricting his state to produce an additional five Democratic seats to neutralize those GOP seats being created in Texas.

3 hours ago
Federal judge refuses to block Alabama law banning DEI initiatives in public schools
A federal judge on Wednesday declined a request to block an Alabama law that bans diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives in public schools and the teaching of what Republican lawmakers dubbed 'divisive concepts' related to race and gender. U.S. District Judge David Proctor wrote that University of Alabama students and professors who filed a lawsuit challenging the law as unconstitutional did not meet the legal burden required for a preliminary injunction, which he called 'an extraordinary and drastic remedy.' The civil lawsuit challenging the statute will go forward, but the law will remain in place while it does. The Alabama measure, which took effect Oct. 1, is part of a wave of proposals from Republican lawmakers across the country taking aim at DEI programs on college campuses. The Alabama law prohibits public schools from funding or sponsoring any DEI program. It also prohibits schools from requiring students to assent to eight 'divisive concepts' including that fault, blame or bias should be assigned to a race or sex or that any person should acknowledge a sense of guilt, complicity or a need to apologize because of their race, sex or national origin. Six professors and students at the University of Alabama filed a lawsuit arguing that the law violates the First Amendment by placing viewpoint-based restrictions on what educators teach. The lawsuit also said the law unconstitutionally targets Black students because it limits programs that benefit them. Professors said they had altered what they taught in their classes in the wake of the law and the university's guidance about it. A professor said he reduced coverage of the Black Power movement, the Black Lives Matter movement and the white nationalist movement in the wake of the law. Another said five students had made complaints suggesting that the interdisciplinary honors program she administered had potential conflicts with the new legislation. The university also shuttered designated spaces for the Black Student Union and a resource center for LGBTQ+ students in the wake of the law. Proctor wrote that a professor's academic freedom does not override a university's decisions about the content of classroom instruction. 'Importantly, SB 129 does not banish all teaching or discussion of these concepts from campus or, for that matter, even from the classroom," Proctor wrote. 'To the contrary, it expressly permits classroom instruction that includes 'discussion' of the listed concepts so long as the 'instruction is given in an objective manner without endorsement' of the concepts.' He added that the law appears to give notice about what is a violation. For example, he said a professor could not 'indoctrinate' students to believe that racial health disparities were the fault of one race of people but could still discuss the role of racism in health disparities. 'If, alternatively, the theory she teaches about is that there is empirical evidence that racism may be a cause for health disparities, or if she frames such teaching as merely a theory, she would not violate SB 129,' Proctor wrote. Will Creeley, legal director of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a nonpartisan First Amendment group, criticized the decision as dangerous and at odds with decades of Supreme Court precedent on academic freedom. 'Academic freedom protects the search for knowledge and truth from political pressure. That's the whole point," Creeley wrote in a statement. 'Faculty are hired to share and hone their expertise in a given field of study, not to read from a government script.'