To the Honorable Court and Officials of Ontario County,

 

We, the undersigned members of the community, respectfully request a review of the sentencing decision in the case of Michael Tapscott.

 

Mr. Tapscott pleaded guilty to 40 counts, including felony drug possession and sale, official misconduct, and petit larceny. The sentence imposed of five years of probation and 16 weekends in jail has caused significant concern within the community regarding fairness and equal application of the law.

 

In New York State, felony drug sale convictions commonly result in incarceration for non-law-enforcement defendants.

 

For example:

Under New York Penal Law § 220.39 (Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance in the Third Degree), a Class B felony, defendants often face 1 to 9 years in state prison, even for first-time offenders.

Under New York Penal Law § 220.16 (Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Third Degree), also a Class B felony, sentencing commonly includes mandatory state prison time depending on prior history.

In People v. Samas, 2019 (Monroe County), the defendant received state prison time for felony drug sales.

In People v. Williams, 2021 (Onondaga County), a defendant convicted of third-degree criminal sale received a multi-year state prison sentence.
 

These cases reflect what ordinary community members frequently face when convicted of felony drug sales or possession. It is difficult to reconcile those outcomes with a sentence of probation for 40 counts that include felony drug offenses and official misconduct.

 

What makes this case especially troubling is that Mr. Tapscott was a law enforcement officer. A position that carries heightened responsibility and public trust. When an officer engages in criminal conduct involving drug distribution and misconduct, the breach of trust is substantial.

 

Equal justice under the law requires that:

Sentencing reflect the severity and volume of charges.
Public officials be held to at least the same standard as private citizens.
The appearance of favoritism be avoided to preserve confidence in the justice system.
 

We respectfully request that this sentence be reviewed to ensure that justice is applied consistently and without preferential treatment.

 

Our community deserves accountability, transparency, and equal enforcement of the law.

In the Finger Lakes region, community members convicted of felony drug sale/possession charges routinely receive multi-year prison sentences, including in nearby counties and in Ontario County itself.

 

Below are examples of widely reported outcomes for non-law-enforcement defendants:

·       Ontario County: A Rochester man was sentenced to 16 years in prison for Ontario County convictions including third-degree criminal sale and possession of a controlled substance. 

·       Yates County: A Seneca Falls man was sentenced to six years in prison after pleading guilty to a felony criminal sale of a controlled substance charge. 

·       Wayne County: A Sodus man was sentenced to four years in prison after pleading guilty to third-degree criminal possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell (Class B felony). 

·       Cayuga County: A defendant who pleaded guilty to third-degree criminal sale and possession was sentenced to four years in prison (concurrent) plus post-release supervision. 

·       Geneva / Ontario County context: Finger Lakes reporting also shows Geneva-area felony drug sale cases resulting in jail + probation outcomes for civilians in serious circumstances. 

 

These examples demonstrate why the Tapscott outcome—probation-centered despite 40 guilty counts and official misconduct—creates a strong appearance of favoritism and unequal treatment. 

We respectfully request:

1.     A public explanation of how this plea and sentence align with typical outcomes for comparable felony drug cases in Ontario County and surrounding Finger Lakes counties.

2.     A formal review by appropriate oversight entities to determine whether this plea agreement reflects consistent standards or preferential treatment.

3.     Policy commitments to ensure law enforcement defendants are not treated more leniently than civilians for similar conduct—especially when charges involve drug sales and misconduct in office.

4.     Our community is not asking for vengeance. We are asking for equal justice and accountability—especially when the defendant held a badge and public authority.