Must Watch: Grady Judd Gets Called Out for His Phony Sex Offender Stings on John Oliver
For more than a dozen years, the Florida Action Committee has been sounding the alarm about the tactics used in certain sex offender sting operations. Now, that message is reaching a national audience. In a recent segment on Last Week Tonight, host John Oliver takes a closer look at the controversial practices of Grady Judd, Sheriff of Polk County, highlighting concerns that closely mirror what FAC has been reporting for years.
The segment raises serious questions about whether some of these operations cross the line into entrapment — situations where individuals may be baited, induced, or pressured into conduct they were not otherwise predisposed to commit. It’s a troubling thought, especially when considering the lifelong consequences that follow, including placement on the registry.
FAC has long questioned how many hundreds (if not thousands) of people have been caught up in these unethical tactics. Individuals who, but for the nature of these operations, would never have engaged in such behavior at all. Now that this issue is being examined on a national stage, the conversation is expanding. We encourage everyone to watch this segment and see for themselves. Send this link to your lawmakers. Send an email to the show’s press contact, [email protected] thanking them for exposing this injustice. And share this post with others. The more people who understand what is REALLY happening, the stronger the call for meaningful reform becomes.
See also:
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Sure, innocent people have probably been caught in these stings. But I’d bet the vast majority are guilty — and once they’re caught, they do the most logical thing available to them: make excuses, deny everything, whatever it takes to wriggle out. People will lie through their teeth over a $200 traffic ticket. You think they won’t over prison time?
The “I thought they were an adult” argument cuts both ways. You didn’t know you were talking to a cop either, so clearly your ability to read a situation isn’t as sharp as you think. And the classic “they sent me a photo of an adult” defense? Okay. But you also couldn’t confirm it wasn’t a minor using a filter or someone else’s photo entirely. The moment they tell you their age and you keep going, without establishing it’s roleplay or with someone you personally know, you’ve accepted all the risk.
This isn’t just my read on it. Watch the actual stings. A significant number of these guys admit on camera they showed up to meet a minor. And a number of them already have prior convictions involving children. That’s not catching innocent people. That’s a pattern.
So you believe ruining the lives of innocents is acceptable collateral damage?
I don’t have much respect for anyone who has a casual attitude toward our civil liberties or the protections that prevent these kinds of abuses from taking place.
Innocent people have been wrongly charged with murder. With rape. With every serious crime on the books. By your logic, we shouldn’t prosecute any of them because the system has gotten it wrong before and will again. That’s not a defense of civil liberties. That’s an argument for abolishing prosecution entirely.
Nobody said ruining innocent lives is acceptable. The question is whether the existence of imperfect outcomes invalidates enforcement altogether. It doesn’t. It never has. We accept that standard everywhere else. So why does it suddenly become a civil liberties crisis here?
I just don’t think the slim possibility of a false positive is a compelling reason to look away from a pattern of predatory behavior that these guys frequently admit to on camera.
You dressed up a weak argument in principled language. That’s not the same thing as having a point.
JJ, Your opinion is certainly welcome here and thanks for the opportunity to debate this, but “a pattern of predatory behavior”? “These guys”? For the overwhelming majority, this is their first time! Where are you getting your stats from?
No one is arguing that crimes shouldn’t be prosecuted because false convictions happen. The issue is how those crimes are being created and proven in the first place. You can’t have undercover officers go out befriending random people, relentlessly pressure someone who has no history of drug use, talk them into trying something, facilitate the entire transaction, and then arrest them for possession. That’s not uncovering criminal intent — that’s manufacturing it.
There’s a fine line: law enforcement can provide an opportunity to someone already predisposed to commit a crime, but it cannot induce or persuade someone who otherwise would not have done it. So the concern here isn’t about a slim possibility of a false positive. It’s about whether the government is creating crimes instead of detecting them. If law enforcement is supplying the idea, escalating the interaction, pressuring someone to participate and guiding it to a criminal endpoint, then you’re no longer observing a “pattern of predatory behavior”, you’re observing a pattern of government-driven entrapment.
That would be a stronger argument if that was actually the usual fact pattern, but you’re building a lot into it from the start. “Befriending random people,” “relentlessly pressuring,” “talking them into it,” and “guiding it to a criminal endpoint” are the very things that would need to be proved, not just assumed. You’re describing entrapment in the conclusion and then using that description as the premise.
No prior record does not mean ‘first time.’ It could just mean first time caught or first time there was enough proof. And predisposition does not depend on having a past conviction. In a sting, the defendant’s own words and actions can be evidence of predisposition. It’s the same idea as a murder for hire sting: no one says the state has to prove the person killed before. The planning conversation itself can be evidence of willingness. A prior conviction would be additional evidence, but the absence of one does not prove the absence of predisposition.
JJ, I want to cite, for your reference, an investigative series from WTSP in Tampa. The news station conducted a year long investigation into these stings, including those in Polk County. They compiled arrest affidavits, public records requests and other information and determined that this was actually the usual fact pattern (the men arrested were “not seeking to meet children online. Instead, they were minding their own business, looking for other adults, when detectives started to groom and convince them to break the law.”): https://www.wtsp.com/article/news/investigations/officers-bend-rules-to-boost-sex-sting-arrest-totals/67-418807754
You are certainly free to disagree with any comment in our forum and we welcome your input. You can also consider WTSP’s investigative series “fake news”. Even though we are not a traditional public forum, an individual’s freedom of speech (even if you don’t agree with our mission) is one of the rights we advocate for. But, and I mean this respectfully, you can’t seriously argue that we’re jumping to baseless conclusions.
Please take a moment to watch the news reports from WTSP (https://youtu.be/gas7KJKtNGQ?si=47awnlFm8Od7GwuB, https://youtu.be/L-45HxbQaHA?si=foz6GNEFfIAvotwG). Here’s one from another news station if you don’t trust the other (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDESWg1lo7s). If you’d like, you are welcome to contact FAC directly and collaborate on a project to solicit public records from these stings so we can get to the bottom of this debate.
They are adults looking for adults on adult sites. No one is there looking for minors and aren’t expecting too. So catching someone who was not pre-disposed to commit an act against a minor is not protecting the public it’s simply pumping up arrests and diverting resources from combating actual crime. And as far as people admitting guilt, remember the police are controlling what is released and also many many of those arrested suffer from autism, social disorders, or some other neurodivergence. Again not protecting the public.
It’s documented that minors access adult platforms at a high rate. That’s not speculation, that’s known. So the site they met on is irrelevant. What matters is what they did the moment they were told the person was underage.
The neurodivergence point is belongs in a sentencing conversation, not an argument about whether the stings are legitimate in the first place. You’re conflating two separate questions. Whether someone deserves a more nuanced legal outcome is a conversation worth having. Whether the enforcement method is valid is a completely different one. One is about justice for the individual. The other is about protecting kids.
And on the admissions. Nobody is editing Chris Hansen footage to manufacture confessions. These men walked in, sat down, and said what they said in their own words on camera. Not one or two. A large number of them. If someone admits something on video and you want to wave it away, the burden is on you to explain why. “Police control the narrative” doesn’t cover a man looking into a camera and telling you exactly what he came there to do.
JJ, I appreciate your opinion, but I think if you watch the John Oliver piece you will question some of these beliefs. Be well.
JJ, You’re relying heavily on assumptions and hypotheticals.
When someone goes onto an adult dating site or responds to an ad representing a 24-year-old, the reasonable expectation is that they are looking to meet with an adult. That expectation is central to evaluating intent. Law enforcement cannot manufacture criminal intent by changing the rules midstream and then claim they’ve uncovered someone “looking to meet a minor”. Second, the idea that “most are guilty” because people lie when facing consequences is speculation. Our system is not supposed to operate on guesses about human nature. It’s supposed to operate on proof of intent beyond a reasonable doubt. Third, the claim that “a number of them have prior convictions” is misleading. What number? Broad statements like that create an impression without substantiating it. Research on recidivism in sex offense cases shows lower reoffense rates than commonly assumed (3%–7.7% according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics). This is not a system dominated by repeat predators. Finally, on-camera “admissions” in these stings are not as straightforward as they appear. That’s another aspect of these stings that’s sketchy. These encounters often involve surprise, pressure, chaos, confusion, and highly leading questioning.
The core issue isn’t whether some individuals had bad intentions. Of course some did. The issue is whether these operations are set up to identify genuine threats or whether they are creating crimes by inducing behavior that would not have otherwise occurred.
You say I’m relying on assumptions but then you do exactly that. Your argument rests on the idea that these men logged on looking for adults and only ended up in trouble because law enforcement “changed the rules midstream.” But the rules didn’t change. Someone told them the person was underage and they kept going. That’s not a manufactured crime. That’s a decision made with the relevant information in hand.
On the recidivism numbers. You’re citing reoffense rates for convicted offenders who completed the legal process, went through supervision, and are being tracked. That’s a specific population. Using that stat to argue that the people showing up to these stings aren’t predisposed tells me you understand how to find a number but not how to apply it.
The “beyond a reasonable doubt” point would land if we were talking about convicting someone for a thoughtcrime. We’re not. We’re talking about people who showed up. Physically. To an address. After a conversation in which they were told the person was a minor. Proof of intent isn’t a guess at that point. It’s a documented sequence of choices.
And yes, there’s pressure, but pressure explains rambling. It explains contradicting yourself. It explains crying or freezing up. It doesn’t explain calmly telling someone the specific details of what you planned to do and even admitting you “arent a victim” of the sting. There’s a difference between a false confession extracted through hours of isolation and sleep deprivation and a grown man voluntarily explaining that he was lonely, desperate, and just didn’t care that she was a minor. One is a documented psychological phenomenon. The other is just getting caught.
You asked whether these operations identify genuine threats or manufacture crime. The answer is sitting right there in the footage. Some of them showed up with condoms. Some brought alcohol. Some had done it before. You can build a careful legal argument around the edges all day. It doesn’t change what they came there to do.
JJ, Once again, I respect your opinion and appreciate the debate. This is a good opportunity for both sides to lay out their perspectives and see whether there’s any common ground.
I’ll start by agreeing with you on one point: if someone is told the person is a minor and still shows up, they are guilty. No one is defending that decision. But the point I’m raising is two-fold and it goes to how we interpret what led up to that moment:
First, would that person have been seeking out a minor at all if law enforcement hadn’t introduced that element into the interaction? There’s a meaningful difference between someone actively pursuing minors and someone who responds to an ad presented as an adult and only later encounters the “minor” narrative. That distinction goes directly to predisposition or a pattern of behavior. Second, are these operations consistently following established standards set by the Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force Program? For example, Section 8.6 of the guidelines states that investigators should allow the target to set the tone, pace, and subject matter of the conversation. In other words, did the individual independently introduce the idea of a minor? Or was the conversation steered there by the officer and then pressure applied until the target acquiesced? That’s not a technicality. That’s the difference between detecting intent and directing intent.
You also mention the physical act of showing up as proof of intent, and I agree. Showing up gets the conviction. But even that doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It’s the end result of a conversation that may have involved escalation, suggestion, or persistence from the other side. If those elements are present, then the question isn’t whether a bad decision was made it’s how that decision was shaped.
At the end of the day, this isn’t about excusing conduct. It’s about ensuring that law enforcement is targeting genuine public threats, not creating scenarios that blur the line between opportunity and inducement. I’d encourage you to take a look one of our posts from a few months ago on “Operation Net Nanny” (and more importantly the source article). It adds important context to our discussion.
I appreciate the debate too, but I think your argument still skips the main issue.
Yes, there is a difference between someone logging on specifically looking for a minor and someone who is introduced to that fact during the conversation. But once the age is disclosed, that distinction starts to matter a lot less. If the person keeps going, turns the conversation sexual, works through the details, and then shows up, he is now pursuing a minor. Legally, that is still a crime. Morally, it is still indefensible.
Even the ICAC standard you cite does not mean officers must sit silently and do nothing. Section 8.6 says the target should generally set the tone, pace, and subject matter of the conversation, but 8.6.1 expressly says investigators may post ads, establish an online presence, and send messages when initiating or conducting an investigation. So the existence of an ad or the fact that police started the contact is not, by itself, proof that intent was “created” by law enforcement.
You also seem to be treating predisposition as if it only exists outside the sting, in a prior record or known history. It often shows up in the chats themselves. It is visible when the person stays engaged after learning the age, keeps steering things back to sex, moves from innuendo to specifics, and follows through with a meetup. That is not law enforcement creating intent out of nowhere. That is the person revealing it.
And what gets called “pressure” is often just investigators trying to get clarity. People use vague language on purpose. They hint, imply, and dance around what they mean because they do not want to say it plainly. If police arrested based only on vague innuendo, critics would say the evidence was too weak. But when officers ask follow up questions so the intent becomes clear, that suddenly gets labeled inducement. Getting someone to clarify his own intentions is not the same as planting those intentions in his head.
If police truly crossed the line and induced someone who was not otherwise willing, there is already a legal defense for that. But that is a separate question from whether the person still made a series of voluntary choices. In these cases, the defendant is not being convicted for merely chatting. He is being convicted because, after being told he was dealing with a minor, he kept going and then showed up.
So I do not think the real issue is whether law enforcement “introduced the element.” The issue is what the person did after that point. And if he had every chance to stop, every chance to block, every chance to walk away, but instead chose to continue and meet, that looks much more like exposed intent than manufactured crime.
Hi Jj, Here is what I think is the big difference in preventing vs. creating crime. If LEO truly wanted to prevent crime they would post as an underage person from the beginning and see who bites, that is predatory behavior. In the most instances thats isn’t the case. It starts with deception and then an attempt to continue develop a conversation continuously to the point where it becomes inappropriate. Had Law enforcement started as posing as a minor from the beginning then I believe all your well articulated points completely hold up and there is almost zero debate, asides from the occasional case specific circumstances which wouid likely be rare.
Shady Grady and his long time buddy Chris Hansen need to be thoroughly investigated about the fraudulent sting operations they’ve been conducting to create fake child predator cases against innocent men who were never a threat to children or anybody. They hide exculpatory evidence and misrepresent the facts to force those wrongful convictions. A forensic analysis of the electronics they use to conduct those fraudulent sting operations would reveal that that. And who knows, it may reveal a lot more than just that!
Accountability is long overdue for the widespread harm they have inflicted on innocent people and the public at large.
It’s like opening a rehab center next to a bar lol
Grady Judd may sleep well at night with his conduct, but everyone who perverts justice will have their own day in court, whether they realize it or not. Given his age, it’s coming sooner for him than he probably realizes.
I’ve come to realize, having been thrust into this realm, people that drive around with stickers that state abhorrent actions towards those forced to register, state, while smiling, “if it saves one child” and pass harsher nonsensical laws, and basically obsess about sex offenses have a weird obsession that borders on pathological regarding this topic. I watched an excellent video about the effects of the internet and porn addiction and the harm it does. The guest stated, “you cant arrest this away”.
If I could give FAC one huge thumbs up for this post, I would! This post is so needed to expose the truth of the matter behind these things and FAC did excellent in doing so. Thank you. Justifying one’s own job in this manner is sad all around, immoral, and unethical. At the same time, the humor was certainly needed on this day from throughout the video as well.
Let’s hope Grady decides to reply to Mr. Oliver on their request for comment on the lawsuit against the dept from the young lady. He really needs to answer for that.
Give us the thumbs up on Social Media:
X: https://x.com/FLActionCom/status/2036413694058569976?s=20
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/share/p/18PgZpsZsv/
Youtube: http://youtube.com/post/Ugkxr5orGMBWx3Gg28HMreBK117pxqLeaSkH?si=_DiHclwbreng9RhO
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/p/DWRFDGjEz3b/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==
If I was a member of those, then I would, but I am not and won’t be. However, this expose’ needs to be exploited for the info it has. Thank you again for being a smart source of info for PFRs.
Exposing the truth is when an adult proposes online to hook up and get naked with someone who says they’re 13 years old.
That scenario is extremely rare. It almost always is an officer posing as an adult on a site for adults and then aggressively pushing the sexual side only to reveal after that they are “underage”. A lot of people disengage at that point but people with social disorders, autism, and other developmental issues are getting caught in this. It’s a crime created out of thin air in hopes of getting an arrest and the federal funding that comes with it. If Polk county was actually any “safer” as a result of these stings the why do they keep “catching” hundreds on each sting? Either they are really bad at their jobs, there is a cartoonish amount of sexual deviancy in Polk County, or (more likely) these stings are all bs theatre.
We would like to see examples of the switch and bait you claim is so prevalent. Can you point to where Polk County, Fla. Sheriff’s Department budget includes receiving federal funds for each sex offender it arrests?
Mr. Bean,
Here are examples: https://www.theledger.com/story/news/local/2023/11/02/polk-county-man-sues-sheriff-judd-ex-deputy-over-2020-arrest/71406023007/, https://www.gilschaffnit.com/florida-man-sues-sheriff-deputy-for-false-accusations-of-child-porn/ and read the sources in the referenced articles below this article. In each post we link to the actual source article, which is mainstream media, not FAC.
Federal funds (Project Safe Neighborhood, Byrne Justice Assistance Grant) pay for these “operations”. You can do a public information request for these, but a quick google search produced some research you can reference: https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/254680.pdf, https://www.osceola.org/files/assets/county/v/1/services/housing-programs/documents/fdle-justice-assistance-grant-jag-program/fy2024-jagc-subgrant-solicitation.pdf, they even collaborate with their cities to apply for these grants: https://www.northportfl.gov/files/assets/main/v/1/city-government/directors-monthly-reports/police/2013/05-2013-police-monthly-report.pdf
The one case you cited Cancela et al v. Judd et al 8:23–cv-02480-MSS-UAM was dismissed 9/12/24. The other links – a lot of noise. Snow job with the grant program and information from North Port, Fla. when we’re talking Polk County? Nice try.
It was dismissed with leave for him to file his claims in the state court. But most importantly, the criminal charges against Cancela were dismissed by the prosecutor. Polk County received hundreds of thousands in Byrne JAG grant money, information on 2021-2023 is available online through the DOJ Grants Portal.
The case was dismissed when Grady Judd (the defendant) filed a motion to dismiss and it was granted.
Thank you FAC for providing some examples. Roy, I would caution you to not accept Law Enforcement’s messaging at face value, unfortunately they have proven time and again that their motivations are rarely driven by protection of children as much as they are driven by driven by publicity and funding. Not all localities are driven by this to be fair but in the countless examples of Polk County, well documented by FAC and others, this is certainly the case. And that is just the knowledge we have been privy to. Judd and his agency have done all they can to stonewall the release of relevant information to media and individuals. It begs the questions as to why they are so reluctant to release transcripts of conversations, texts of ads placed for sting operations, and footage of interviews. Where there is smoke there is fire and Polk County Sheriff’s department at this point is a raging inferno.
After the LEO initially said they were 26 to set the hook. The gent went to find out WTH was going on when he should’ve disengaged the conversation and reported it when curiosity got the worse of him. Again, this is going to come back and bite LE hard one time and someone will get hurt as we’ve seen (which could be LE in the end when the actions will be reviewed in the public sphere and seen by all for what they are entrapping people into). Playing on the mindsets of those who may be medically mentally diagnosed with something that others may not have is so immoral they should be ashamed of themselves.