Skip to main content

Sex offenders, convicts out of jail and suspects get surprise visits from local law enforcement

By Howard B. Owens

Local law enforcement agencies conducted a sweep of the area last night checking on registered sex offenders and convicts on probation or parole.

In all, about 100 people received an unexpected visit from a plain clothes or uniformed cop.

Five arrests were made on outstanding warrants and nine people were found out of compliance with the terms of their release.

A total of 50 registered sex offenders had their current addresses verified.

Sixteen people out of jail under the supervision of Genesee Justice were checked, and three people were reportedly found out of compliance of the terms of their release. Those cases were referred to Genesee Justice for further review.

Fifteen people under the supervision of the county probation department were checked, and two were reportedly found out of compliance of the terms of their release. The investigation is continuing on these cases.

Eighteen New York parolees were checked on and four were reportedly found out of compliance of the terms of their parole. The investigation is continuing on these cases.

Arrested on outstanding warrants were five Batavians: 

  • Gary Amarosa, 52, of 4029 W. Main St. Road.
  • Thomas Kennelly, 26, of 16 Maple St.
  • Raquel Ramos, 29, of 329 Ellicott St.
  • Ballard Maye, 23, of 35 Maple St.
  • Kirk Frye, 20, of 3207 Pratt Road

Participating in the sweep were City of Batavia Police, Genesee County Probation, New York State Division of Parole, Genesee County Sheriff's Office, Genesee County Local Drug Enforcement Task Force.

Karen Miconi

I wonder if this is why the police were down the street again? Isn't law enforcement, suppose to send sex offender notifications to residents in the area? Especially 20 ft. from school property?

Jan 30, 2010, 7:46pm Permalink
Gary Spencer

Beth,

I am assuming that none of the sex offenders were "out of compliance"

The article says:

"Five arrests were made on outstanding warrants and nine people were found out of compliance with the terms of their release.

A total of 50 registered sex offenders had their current addresses verified."

Jan 29, 2010, 9:39pm Permalink
Susan Kennelly

Beth.... not sure why they were listed on this story at all. My son is one of the ones listed. He was arrested on an outstanding warrant for an unpaid fine. He went to court talked to the judge and went home. He has until next week to pay the fine. It was no big deal. But this story, the one they showed on the news today and the one in the paper infuriate me. They shouldn't lump sex offenders and unpaid fines in the same story. Notice of course, none of the sex offenders or probation violators were listed by name.

Jan 29, 2010, 10:43pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Susan, this is the information released by the Sheriff's Office. It was all in one, single-page press release.

As stated above, the only arrests made were on warrants.

For sex offenders, merely addresses were confirmed.

As for parole and probation violations, those cases remain under investigation, so no names released, which is why there are no names listed.

Jan 29, 2010, 10:53pm Permalink
Bea McManis

Thank you, Gabor, exactly what I was thinking. Perhaps, Howard didn't realize that the tabloid type headline, and then the names in the article would seem to go hand in hand.
I'm sure there were many who went to the sex offender site to see if those names were listed.

Jan 30, 2010, 7:07am Permalink
Susan Kennelly

Howard I don't blame you at all.
I know it was the press release because it said the same thing on the news and in the paper.

I'm only mad because it listed it all in a lump sum and people automatically assume even though its very clearly stated (that they were picked up on warrants) that the people listed were the sex offenders.

Jan 30, 2010, 9:14am Permalink
Doug Yeomans

The opening paragraph "Local law enforcement agencies conducted a sweep of the area last night checking on registered SEX OFFENDERS and CONVICTS ON PROBATION or PAROLE." is quite clear.

1. sex offenders 2. convicts on probation or parole. These are distinct separations of people who were visited for assorted reasons. Maybe if sex offenders had been listed last, some of you wouldn't have been so confused?

I read the same article that you did and wasn't confused. Why can't people understand what they read?

Feb 1, 2010, 8:23am Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Because emotions get in the way. It's real easy to misread or read into something when you have a preconceived notion about what it might say. I've done it. I'm sure I'll do it again.

Feb 1, 2010, 8:39am Permalink
Doug Yeomans

But when you do it, you check yourself. "hmmm...did I read this correctly and objectively or did I jump to conclusions?" Usually it's best to read something and then give yourself time to digest what it really says, then make comments.

Feb 1, 2010, 8:42am Permalink

Authentically Local