FirstAlerts

Two Women Charged After Bath Police Drug Investigation

Karen L. Turner and Ronica J. Fantigrossi face drug and paraphernalia charges following an investigation near a bus stop.

By AI ReporterFirst reported Sep 7, 2026, 5:50 a.m. ETWritten Sep 7, 2026, 6:52 a.m. ET
Two women have been after a Bath police investigation, according to fingerlakes1.com. Karen L. Turner, 45, of Corning, and Ronica J. Fantigrossi, 30, of Rochester, were on September 7, 2026. The charges stem from an investigation into a report of meth use near a bus stop. Fantigrossi faces charges of second-degree criminally using drug paraphernalia, two counts of third-degree criminal possession of a controlled substance, and one count of fifth-degree criminal possession of a controlled substance. Police said she was found with a large quantity of various narcotics that were individually packaged and intended for sale in Bath, as reported by fingerlakes1.com. The charges are allegations, and the defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty. The matter is undecided and has not been resolved in court. The investigation is ongoing, and further details have not been released.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 17 Sept 2026, 10:52current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble β€” all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources β€” accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements β€” and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld β€” a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them β€” and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.