Operation Cooked was announced in Osceola County on October 8, 2026. WFTV reports the sting ran September 2-5. When I see an announcement like this, I want to know what happened before the arrests. Who taught the officers? What were they taught to say, and who checked their work?

Victims of sexual abuse deserve to be heard, protected and helped. They deserve care, counseling and support that lasts. Children deserve safety. I want investigations that protect them and hold up in court. Clear rules and honest answers help everyone.

That is why I looked at ICAC, the Internet Crimes Against Children program. It supports investigations and training, including undercover courses through Fox Valley Technical College. Broward’s 2025-2026 budget reports that Detective Rolando Abreu completed Fox Valley’s Undercover Chat course in May 2025. FDLE has also announced undercover chat training.

Photo source: Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE), via LinkedIn 8/2026

Osceola is connected too. A North Port city record identifies the Osceola County Sheriff’s Office as the lead agency for Central Florida ICAC, providing partner agencies with funding, standards and training. This education is part of the system behind the arrests.

The tactics deserve attention. A publicly posted 2018 version of national ICAC standards allows online advertisements, messages and certain photographs edited to look younger. Those permissions come with limits. The target should generally set the conversation’s tone, pace and subject matter, unless prosecutors advise otherwise. The standards address entrapment law and consultation with prosecutors. Older course descriptions and Broward policies cover undercover identities, chatting and limits on improper pressure. I want instructors to explain how they teach these limits, how supervisors check complete chats and whether court criticism changes the lessons before the next undercover operation begins.

But having rules does not guarantee that officers follow them. In a 2014 investigation reproduced on FAC’s website, WTSP reported officers approaching adults on dating sites, later introducing a claimed minor and encouraging continued conversations. It reported judges criticizing officers for steering chats toward sexual activity. That is historical reporting about Florida operations, and it gives us specific conduct to examine.

There are documented policy violations elsewhere too. In South Carolina’s 2009 State v. Odom opinion, an officer admitted conducting undercover chats off duty on a personal computer, against ICAC policies. The state’s Supreme Court held those violations did not justify excluding the chats. Breaking a program rule and proving a legal defense are separate questions.

Washington’s State v. Arbogast involved an officer posing as a mother, tying a possible adult sexual relationship to sexual conduct with children. The Washington Supreme Court found enough evidence to require an entrapment instruction and upheld a new trial. In State v. Erlandson, involving a profile initially listing age 39, an altered adult photo and a later claim of being 13, convictions were affirmed. Florida has its own entrapment law.

These sources show that compliance cannot be assumed. They do not establish how often today’s Florida operations depart from the rules. I do not know whether Osceola used Washington’s particular tactics. I have not verified which standards governed Operation Cooked or obtained the full instructor manuals. I want the actual policies, training materials and complete conversations reviewed.

FAC’s John Oliver comment discussion also raises questions about adult dating sites and who leads the conversation. FAC-3 points readers back to WTSP’s reporting and invites a review of public records. Comments can help identify questions worth checking. Individual claims still need records to verify them.

The New York Times examined Net Nanny in “Convicted of Sex Crimes, but With No Victims.” Its link may require a subscription. John Oliver’s police stings episode raised broader concerns, saying stings “might actually be doing more harm than good.” His episode and our FAC YouTube channel are linked here.

An arrest involving a decoy should not automatically be counted as a child rescued. Washington’s public policy study did not establish Net Nanny’s effectiveness. Taxpayers help pay for these investigations and training. They deserve clear answers about costs, methods and results. Lawmakers deserve those answers too when deciding what to fund, improve or change. When courts question tactics, does the training change? Who checks compliance? Victims deserve real help, children deserve protection and the public deserves evidence that this system is doing its job.