This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Community Corner

RYE'S BASSETT CASE – HAMMER TIME.

Rye’s ‘Bassett Case’ lifts the lid once again on city hall and police department corruption under the prior management of Steve Otis, Esq., Kevin Plunkett, Esq. and O. Paul Shew - who directed the activities of former Police Commissioner William Connors, Esq. in this officially sanctioned episode in infamy. The case btw has multiple parallels to the stonewalled crimes against the now deceased Bob Schubert. And, don’t forget, Messer’s Otis, Plunkett and Shew were in charge when the Rye Golf Club’s infamous RM Staffing & Stealing got approval to bill city hall for its ‘services’ with no public mention, no RFP process or even a written contract.

 

With Bassett v City of Rye a White Plains jury spoke very plainly in late 2010. But the city couldn’t face the truth – and couldn’t and wouldn’t stop the stream of legal fees so profitable to its legal ‘advisors’ to hide it. Thus the appeals dragged on and on and Rye taxpayers kept paying and paying and Mr. Bassett and his family waited for justice delayed until – last week – the hammer finally came down.

Find out what's happening in Ryewith free, real-time updates from Patch.

 

Let’s review what the jury told Rye about its municipal leadership: In Bassett v City of Rye, The Rye Police Department and several members of the Rye Police Department were accused of:

Find out what's happening in Ryewith free, real-time updates from Patch.

 

1. Not having probable cause to arrest Bassett, a Rye resident. 

 

The Jury ruled unanimously in favor of Bassett that the Rye Police Department Officers did NOT have probable cause to make the arrest.

 

2. Did the Rye Police Department and members of the Rye Police Department have qualified immunity for their actions?

 

The Jury ruled unanimously in favor of Bassett that the Rye Police Department Officers did NOT have qualified immunity

 

3. Was the Plaintiff's (Bassett) arrest pursuant to policy, practice or custom of defendant City of Rye?

 

The Jury ruled 5-1 in favor of Bassett that this arrest was in fact pursuant to policy, practice or custom. 

 

4. Were the Plaintiff's (Bassett) constitutional rights under the fourth and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution violated by his arrest by defendant City of Rye Police Officers?  

 

The Jury ruled unanimously that Bassett’s rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION were violated by Rye Police Officers. 

 

The Plaintiff (Bassett) was awarded $50,000 from the City of Rye and the Rye Police Department and sought legal fees from the City of Rye. 

 

We can’t wait till we can show all Rye taxpayers how much our outside lawyers have collected by now on this miscarriage manufactured to cloak Rye’s darkest municipal malefactors.

 

Developing.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?