Bishop Police have “person of interest” in embezzlement case

BISHOP PD300UPDATE: 11am Tuesday – At Monday night’s Bishop City Council meeting, Police Chief Chris Carter spoke to the Council about the embezzlement investigation.  He called it  “quite the daunting task for our small department.”  He said investigations like this are few and far between.  The Chief said he hopes to have more information on this case by the end of the week.  He thanked the District Attorney’s Office and County for the team effort in the investigation.

Supervisor Jeff Griffiths also spoke at the Council meeting.  He thanked Chief Carter and the DA for working “on the embezzlement to locate suspects.  We concerned,” said Griffiths, “about internal controls.  We want to make sure this does not happen again.”

***

Bishop Police Chief Chris Carter has confirmed that over the weekend the Police Department, in conjunction with the District Attorney’s Office, served a search warrant at a Bishop area home in a continuation of their investigation of possible embezzlement from the Inyo County Welfare Office in Bishop.

Officers served the warrant at the home of Kenneth and Dawndee Rossy in the Bishop area. Chief Carter said as a result, officers found a small amount of controlled substance which led to the arrest of Ken Rossy who was transported to the Inyo County Jail.

Asked if police and attorneys recovered any evidence related to the welfare money embezzlement, Chief Carter said the arrest of Ken Rossy was unrelated. He also said, “Our investigation is progressing and Dawndee Rossy is a person of interest.” She is an employee of the Inyo Welfare or Social Services Office in Bishop.

Last week, Health and Human Services Director Jean Turner had issued a press release that said employees in Social Services had detected “irregularities” and that a “substantial amount of money was taken.” Turner said the irregularities pointed to a potential theft of public funds in Social Services. She reported this to Inyo law enforcement and to the State.

Director Turner said because this case is under investigation she could not reveal any other details. She offered assurances that steps were taken to stop what she called “this emerging scheme to defraud the public.”

Both Turner and Police Chief Carter said they could not comment on the exact amount of money involved, although Turner did say the amount is “substantial.”

 

 

, , ,

19 Responses to Bishop Police have “person of interest” in embezzlement case

  1. Benett Kessler January 29, 2013 at 12:11 pm #

    That’s speculation at this point. How about we wait for actual evidence and charges.
    BK

     
  2. Kristan Walden January 29, 2013 at 4:12 pm #

    It’s these type of unfounded comments that make it so hard to be treated fairly, within our judicial system. We don’t even know if there actually have been any criminal acts committed, and you are condemning a person who is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. It’s just too bad that there isn’t a law against rumor mongering. I hope that justice prevails. One can only hope, with attitudes like this being prevalent.

     
    • Benett Kessler January 29, 2013 at 4:16 pm #

      You are right. I’m removing the comments.
      Benett Kessler

       
    • Jeremiah's Alter Ego January 29, 2013 at 5:38 pm #

      People aren’t treated the same!
      They aren’t treated the same on a national level and they aren’t treated the same on a local level. Just because YOU don’t see it doesn’t mean it isn’t out there.
      And no it is not comments on this site that create a tainted system.
      Somebody is defrauding the public, And I don’t care who they are they deserve the embarrassment and to go to jail like the bankers that defrauded the whole country Oh wait a minute???

       
  3. Steve January 29, 2013 at 4:29 pm #

    “Officers served the warrant at the home of Kenneth and Dawndee Rossy in the Bishop area. Chief Carter said as a result, officers found a small amount of controlled substance which led to the arrest of Ken Rossy who was transported to the Inyo County Jail.”

    If the original warrant was not drug related, then Ken Rossy should not be charged as this is a violation to the 4th admendment; unlawful search and seizure.

     
    • Benett Kessler January 29, 2013 at 4:41 pm #

      I suspect you are not correct about this. I don’t believe officers have to ignore the law generally because
      they search a location for a specific reason.
      Benett Kessler

       
      • Steve January 29, 2013 at 8:17 pm #

        Benett, the question that needs to be answered is whether the narcotics found was related to the case, example was the money diverted for drugs. If they are not related then the evidence cannot be used to prosecute and the Exclusionary Rule is applied. More information is needed in order to determined if there will be a drug charge.

        As far as everyone bashing me for my 4th amendment comment, this is part of the constitution, just like hate speech is permitted in the 1st and the right to keep and bear arms under the 2nd. Either way everyone charged will have the right to a trial by jury under the 6th amendment.

         
    • Wayne Deja January 29, 2013 at 5:28 pm #

      Steve…With what you say,if Law Enforcement entered the house looking for evidence in the embezzlement case,and while looking around,and behind the couch,they found some dope….and a dead body, would they have to walk away from that,fearing 4th amendment rights ?

       
      • Steve January 29, 2013 at 8:53 pm #

        In your example Wayne through the process of discovery, police may seize objects not specified in the warrant only if they are in plain view during the course of the search, discovered in part as a result of an independent, untainted source or preponderance of the evidence that normal police investigation would have inevitably led to the discovery of the evidence.
        If Mr Rossy had is meth in plain view he is in big trouble.

         
    • Reality Check January 29, 2013 at 5:30 pm #

      Steve you are wrong. If Law Enforcement is searching for paper records, stolen property, cash etc. and they find drugs, it can be used against the suspect. As long as they find the drugs in an area they were searching that could contain the items listed on the warrant. The catch all is that warrants for residences include seizing anything that shows who has control of the property such as keys, receipts, utility records etc. Those can be anywhere.

       
    • getreal January 29, 2013 at 6:02 pm #

      So with your logic if cops have a search warrant for drugs and find child porn that’s ok ?
      If they are searching for a murder weapon and they find someone being held against their will, it’s fine ?

      You have got to be kidding.

       
      • Benett Kessler January 29, 2013 at 10:12 pm #

        Dear getreal,
        You’ve got to be kidding.
        Benett Kessler

         
      • Reality Check January 30, 2013 at 12:15 am #

        I’m not kidding, its the law.

        Getreal, I hate to be the one to tell you this, but what you see on television isn’t real!

         
        • getreal February 1, 2013 at 12:38 pm #

          Truth is stranger than fiction. How many search warrants have you personally been a part of ?

          Dont be so naive Inyo County residents. It’s here in our neighborhoods.

           
          • Reality Check February 1, 2013 at 1:58 pm #

            Over two hundred over 30 years.

             
    • cat January 29, 2013 at 9:46 pm #

      It would not be a violation of the 4th amendment. The Warrant (go get a copy at the court house) will indicate that the judge signed off on a search of the location for a list of details. I will bet the list will include an item small enough to be found in the space of where the drugs were located. As long as Law enforcement followed the warrant the search and find would be legal. I today’s age they couls be looking for something as small as a data chip small as a stick of gum. Sorry Steve but you are wrong on this one, I’ll bet on it,

       
      • Reality Check January 30, 2013 at 12:11 am #

        Exactly Cat. You nailed it.

        Having written a few hundred search warrants and never lost one on a 1538.5 motion, I know what I am talking about.

         
      • cat January 30, 2013 at 6:46 am #

        Cat-I luv to gamble around Super Bowl time, I’ll take that bet if Benett promises to follow up on it 🙂 Good luck getting our DA to comment on it.

         
  4. Trouble January 29, 2013 at 9:19 pm #

    Benett, I would be surprised if a third party could be convicted of a crime unrelated to this search warrant. Unless they convict him of a crime related to the search warrant. Lawyers should have a field day with this one.

     

Leave a Reply



KSRW · 1280 N. Main St. Suite J · Bishop, CA 93514 · 760-873-5329
Positive Projections Web Design