Bargaining in Blue

By

Ballotpedia staff

Bargaining in Blue, a monthly newsletter from Ballotpedia, analyzes recent police-related news and policy debates through the lens of police collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) and police officer bills of rights within state statutes. These form the landscape within which police policy must be understood. 

We provide in-depth context unavailable anywhere else by leveraging insights from Ballotpedia’s research and analysis of police CBAs in all 50 states and the top 100 largest cities by population, which is accessible through our police CBA dashboard.

In this month’s edition of Bargaining in Blue: 

  • On the beat: Fatal shooting of Sonya Massey leads to investigation of police disciplinary records disclosure 
  • Insights: Disciplinary records retention and disclosure in police CBAs across the country
  • Around the table: Does disclosure of police disciplinary records promote accountability or violate officer’s rights?  

On the beat

Fatal shooting of Sonya Massey leads to investigation of police disciplinary records disclosure 

Sean Grayson, the deputy sheriff that fatally shot Sonya Massey on July 6, had a history of misconduct allegations and worked for six different police agencies since August 2020. The Sangamon County Sheriff’s Office stated they did not receive relevant disciplinary records from Grayson’s previous employers. Provisions in police collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) may have contributed to the lack of disclosure surrounding Grayson’s records. 

While employed at the Logan County Sheriff’s Office—where Grayson worked before working at the Sangamon County Sheriff’s Office—there were multiple complaints of misconduct against him. Interview records between Grayson and his Logan County supervisors indicated concerns about violations of department policy, potential misconduct, and Grayson’s reporting of an incident. 

He was investigated in 2022 for violating department policy by initiating a high-speed chase and allegedly lying in his report of the incident. Despite considering official discipline and termination, Grayson’s supervisors recommended training on high-stress decision-making and the department’s policies. A report from CNN indicated it was not clear if Grayson completed the recommended training before resigning and joining the Sangamon County Sheriff’s Office. 

Sangamon County Sheriff Jack Campbell said the department had not received any reports of misconduct from Grayson’s previous law enforcement agencies, but said previous employers told Campbell that Grayson needed more training. Campbell argued, “There was nothing in his background that would disqualify him from being a police officer in Illinois.”

Campbell announced his resignation on August 9 effective by August 31 at the latest. 

The background

Sean Grayson, a deputy for the Sangamon County Sheriff’s Office, fatally shot 36-year-old Sonya Massey on July 6 when responding to a call at her home in Springfield, Illinois. Grayson was fired and indicted for first-degree murder, aggravated battery with a firearm, and official misconduct. Grayson pleaded not guilty and was denied pretrial release. 

Grayson worked for the following police departments from 2020-2024:

  • Part-time for the Pawnee Police Department from August 2020 to July 2021
  • Part-time for the Kincaid Police Department from February 2021 to May 2021
  • Part-time for the Virden Police Department from May 2021 to December 2021
  • Full-time for the Auburn Police Department from July 2021 to May 2022
  • Full-time for the Logan County Sheriff’s Office from May 2022 to April 2023
  • Full-time for the Sangamon County Sheriff’s Office from May 2023 to July 2024

Grayson’s personnel file indicated he was discharged from the military in 2016 due to serious misconduct, but the nature of the misconduct was not disclosed. He was also charged with two DUIs in 2015 and 2016.

A closer look at Logan County Sheriff’s Office CBA

The Logan County Sheriff’s Office CBA contains provisions related to the storage and inspection of personnel files. Police officers have the right under the CBA to inspect and dispute any information in their personnel file. The CBA also requires immediate notification to officers when a written warning or disciplinary documentation is added to their file.

The CBA also prohibits the use of any information not available for inspection by the officer to be used in a way “adverse to the employee’s interest.” This includes reference reports, psychological examinations, or “information provided to the County and/or the Sheriff with a specific request that it remain confidential.”

Section 12.4 of the Logan County Sheriff’s Office CBA states:

It is agreed that any material and/or matter not available for inspection, such as provided in Section 12.1 above, shall not be used in any manner or any forum adverse to the employee’s interest.

Any information of an adverse employment nature which may be contained in any unfounded, exonerated or otherwise not sustained occurrence, shall not be used against the employee in any future proceedings. 

Want to go deeper?

Insights

Ballotpedia CBA Dashboard takeaways on police disciplinary records retention and disclosure provisions 

  • Featured dashboard query
    • Scope: all states and the top 100 largest cities
    • Topic: processes for retaining officer disciplinary records 

CBAs and LEOBORs frequently include specific processes and requirements for officer records. These include the types of records stored, where and how they are stored, accessibility and usage, and timelines for removing or purging records. 

According to our Police CBA Dashboard:

  • 28 of the 100 largest cities in the U.S. have police CBAs containing provisions related to processes for retaining officer disciplinary records
  • 14 states and the District of Columbia have police CBAs containing provisions related to processes for retaining officer disciplinary records 
  • Click here to view the dashboard query showing details
  • 37 of the 151 states and cities we analyzed have police CBAs containing provisions directing some or all disciplinary records to be removed or destroyed after a certain length of time:
    • 28 police CBAs direct the removal or destruction of certain disciplinary records after a set amount of time has passed.
      • The Illinois police CBA requires written reprimands for any infraction to “be purged from all records when more than 15 months have elapsed since the employee was last warned for such an offense.” 
    • Eight police CBAs allow officers to request disciplinary records be removed from their personnel file after a set amount of time passed. 
    • The Miami, Florida police CBA requires disciplinary records to be destroyed five years after termination or retirement.
  • 24 police CBAs contain provisions related to where disciplinary records must be stored:
    • Six police CBAs store disciplinary records in a state-run database.
    • 17 police CBAs store disciplinary records in a city-run or city-specific database.
    • The Florida police CBA requires storage of disciplinary records in electronic or paper form at the employing agency. 
  • The Anchorage, Alaska police CBA states records are not available to the public, under Alaska state law.

Around the table

Does disclosure of police disciplinary records promote accountability or violate officer’s rights?

Proponents of disciplinary record transparency argue efforts to shield officers’ misconduct history allow them to seek employment from different law enforcement agencies after being fired or forced to resign, an issue they refer to as wandering officers. 

CNN journalist Ray Sanchez argued wandering officers are a problem throughout the United States and called for a national database to track officer misconduct.

The absence of an exhaustive, national database for tracking and weeding out rogue cops – along with a lack of coordination among the more than 18,000 law enforcement agencies in the country – has allowed officers like Grayson to get hired without their checkered histories sounding an alarm, according to policing officials and experts.

‘There’s no question that … officers getting rehired after they’ve been let go under whatever circumstances is a huge problem and appears to be responsible for a grossly disproportionate number of tragic incidents,’ said Christy Lopez, a former deputy chief in the special litigation section of the civil rights division at the Justice Department during the Obama administration.

Former Associate Editor of Texas Law Review Ash Guatam in a 2022 article argued, calls for police disciplinary records transparency must account for officers’ privacy rights and desire to shield their reputation. 

One of the most frequent types of harm that officers worry about resulting from greater public access to police disciplinary records is unfair damage to officer reputation. In some cases, police disciplinary records merely note the infraction alleged or sustained without the factual context that prompted the discipline or investigation, leaving the public to make uninformed judgments and potentially assume the worst about the officers. […] For an extreme example, some records might not clearly delineate whether a complaint against an officer was substantiated or unsubstantiated, potentially leaving readers to assume that a reported case of misconduct was substantiated when it was not. Also, personnel files and police disciplinary records vary significantly in both content and style across departments. The public might fail to keep track of all these differences and read records from one department assuming, or at least implicitly influenced by, very different contexts used in files and records in other departments.

Want to go deeper?