New details released in cyber stalking case.
Court documents filed Thursday by U.S. Attorney Craig R. Gestring shed new light on behavior by William Rosica, the former Irondequoit police officer convicted of cyberstalking his ex-girlfriend, that led to a recommendation of a sentence up to three months longer than what was included in his plea agreement. In October, Rosica waived indictment and pleaded guilty to cyberstalking and computer intrusion, charges carrying a maximum penalty of five years in prison, a $250,000 fine and three years of post-release supervision for each charge. Gestrings court filing notes that phone calls Rosica made from jail show that Rosica remains dangerously fixated on the victim. On several occasions, Rosica tried to get updated address and personal information about the victim in this case. And true to form, Rosica used and manipulated others including his new girlfriend to do his bidding, according to the prosecutions filing. His new girlfriend went online and tried to dig up information on her predecessor at the defendants direction, according to the prosecutor. Rosicas new girlfriend works for the town of Irondequoit Planning Board, and has access to information systems not available to the general public, according to Gestring. Rosica also asked a friend who worked for the Monroe County Water Authority to access Water Authority records related to the victim, according to the prosecutor. The fact that Rosica continues to exhibit a rapacious hunger for information related to the victim, and that he continues to try to get details about her and her family even while incarcerated after pleading guilty to federal charges related to staking her is disturbing at best and suggests that this defendant simply has not learned anything while in jail, according to the court filing. The woman from the charged federal offenses was not the first victim of William Rosica. And sadly, she will likely not be the last, Gestring wrote. Rosica admitted to the cyberstalking between February 2016 and March 2017 when he used digital surveillance, physical stalking, and harassment, created multiple fictitious email accounts and sent hundreds of harassing emails and text messages to the victim, her family, and her employer. He also used other people to help conduct surveillance of the victim and he used his position as a police officer to access law enforcement databases and other systems to get information about the victim and her family. Rosicas plea agreement calls for a five-year prison term when he scheduled to be sentenced on Feb. 1. But the officials who prepared his presentence investigation report (PSR) recommended a sentence of 51 to 63 months, as much as three months more than what was included in the plea agreement. According to a court filing by Rosicas attorney, Supervisory Assistant Federal Public Defender Mark D. Hosken, the PSR, which has not been made public, cites recorded phone calls between Rosica, in jail, and his girlfriend in which he allegedly planned future criminal activity. Hosken argued in his court papers that the recorded calls do not evidence criminal conduct and should not affect the sentence in the plea agreement. Based on the conclusions in the PSR, it appears the claim is Mr. Rosica engaged in new cyberstalking activity in contravention of federal law. He did not, Hosken wrote. While the prosecution is abiding by the plea agreement and seeking a five-year sentence, Gestring wrote that the new information about Rosicas continued attempts to stalk his ex-girlfriend, even from jail, is relevant to the sentencing phase of the case. This new behavior, committed while the defendant was incarcerated for similar conduct with the same victim, goes directly to the defendants background and character, according to Gestrings court filing.
Copyright © 2018 BridgeTower Media. All Rights Reserved.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Publication:||Daily Record (Rochester, NY)|
|Date:||Jan 22, 2018|
|Previous Article:||Supreme Court puts order to redraw N. Carolina maps on hold.|
|Next Article:||Second Circuit explains decision on speedy trial issue.|