Illinois Leaks | Shelby County Sheriff’s Office – Conflicting Gun Inventories –

Shelby Co. (ECWd) –

The power of the Freedom of Information Act is only as good as the willingness of the public body to be honest with the production of records. Knowing this, we have learned to request key documents in a way that locks in the public body based on the information we already have in hand. After multiple FOIA requests regarding the illegal sale of firearms seized in Shelby County, it is clear that a criminal investigation was underway, and even clearer that someone must be held accountable.

Ever since the forensic auditor coined the term Shelby County Special when it comes to payroll, we’re going to coin the term Shelby County Blend with regard to the mixture carried out with firearms.

Former Sheriff Koonce produced a inventory of weapons seized in 2019. This request included the list of weapons sold and allegedly recoveredaccording to former Sheriff Koonce.

In a 2020 request for evidence entered in a particular case, a list of 32 firearms was provided and this file indicates that these weapons were seized in October 2017 by former Deputy Shaun McQueen. The problem is that the inventory provided in our original 2019 request did not contain 8 of the weapons listed on the 2017 seized evidence that are highlighted in the link. Considering they were seized in 2017, they should have been on the inventory list in the original request. That they were missing from inventory was part of the original criminal complaint being investigated by authorities.

Shelby County Blend

comparing the list of weapons “sold and then recovered” with the current inventory provided by current sheriffwe find that one of these weapons is no longer in evidence and that there is no trace of the disposition of the missing Swiss Schmidt 7.5 Swiss Ruben M1911, highlighted in the document.

More troubling is the fact that the current inventory provided by Sheriff McReynolds shows weapons on his current inventory now. include 8 firearms that were among the weapons seized in 2017 but missing from the inventory provided by former Sheriff Koonce. This indicates that these weapons were magically brought back into evidence.

From the public records provided, it appears that a redesign has taken place and is in fact missing a gun. Given that this case was under investigation by the ISP, it does not surprise us to see guns being returned once they realize they are under investigation.

The fact that one of these weapons is missing indicates additional problems for the sheriff’s office and a member of the county council.

According to page 131 of the ISP investigation report, it was alleged that the chairman of the sheriff’s committee confirmed that there were no missing weapons. There’s no mention of who it was, but we understand it would have been Gary Patterson or Kay Kearney. What is more troubling about the report is that the ISP reports “Most, if not all, of the firearms were purchased by SCSO employees”. Most, if not all? So the ISP has not confirmed who actually bought the weapons sold? If “most” were purchased by SCSO employees, who purchased the remaining weapons?

Also, Sheriff McReynolds told us that all firearms are counted according to his deputy evidence officer and the forensic auditor.

Unless the sheriff’s office can document the whereabouts of the missing Swiss Schmidt rifle, it appears the ISP report and auditor’s confirmation may have been based on limited information. This is not surprising because if the person taking the inventory is not aware of ALL the documents described above, they will have no way of confirming the missing weapon.

Our questions:

  • How did 8 guns magically re-enter the inventory that was actually missing from the original inventory provided by former Sheriff Koonce?
  • Was the return of these weapons an attempt to “rob” the bank so to speak?
  • Where is the Swiss Schmidt rifle listed as one of the guns sold at Locked and Loaded and then retrieved after our request for records?
  • For those who claim there are no missing weapons, can you explain the Swiss Schmidt rifle that was recovered but is not on the current inventory list?
  • Why was the receipt book for gun sales destroyed amid an audit and criminal investigation, which the Secretary of State says violates the law?
  • When will Shelby County Sheriff’s Office employees be held accountable for violating counties’ code by participating in the sale of guns seized by a sheriff?
  • Why do sales receipts conflict with deposits and funds refunded for returned weapons? (Yes, more articles to come)
  • When will the Attorney General make a charging decision on what clearly constitutes a violation of the law?

As it stands, there are many unanswered questions, no accountability for many violations of our laws, and a gun missing according to their own records.

Comments are closed.