Drug War

Department of Children and Families Investigator Offers to "Help" Woman by Demanding Sex in Exchange for Not Having Her Imprisoned


A former investigator with Florida's Department of Children and Families has been arrested for "bribery by a public servant, official misconduct, and falsifying records" after he told a woman under his supervision that he would hide the results of her drug-positive urine test if she would have sex with him. When the 22-year-old woman refused, DCF Investigator Andrew Thomas threatened to report her to her probation officer.

The Volusia County Sheriff's Office has more:

Thomas explained to the victim that he could lose his job for helping her, so she would need to do something to prove he could trust her. The woman told investigators that Thomas started pressuring her to have sex with him in exchange for a clean urine sample. At one point, the victim tried recording the conversation using her cell phone, but Thomas noticed. He ordered her to delete the recording and have sex with him. The victim was finally able to appease Thomas by taking off all of her clothes so he could look at her body, but they did not engage in any sex. Thomas then provided a urine sample and had the victim sign paperwork attesting to having passed the drug screening.

The victim later told her boyfriend what had happened and the boyfriend called Thomas to confront him. Thomas apologized, but explained that he had felt that he was backed into a corner when the victim had failed the test. To help her he needed to have her do something that would prove her trustworthiness. Thomas also stressed to the boyfriend that he was in the process of closing all of the victim's DCF cases.

The woman notified Thomas's superiors at the Department of Children and Families, who told Thomas a complaint had been filed. According to the Volusia County Sheriff's Office, Thomas resigned the next day and moved immediately to Pennsylvania, "to be near family." He was arrested this week in Pennsylvania and awaits extradition back to Florida. Meanwhile, investigators in Volusia County have uncovered more incidents of extortion and harassment, including one case in which Thomas allegedly called and texted one of his female cases "late at night….complimented how she looked, invited her to the beach and to go gambling, and asked her about body massages and sex."

Thomas is the third Florida DCF employee to be charged this year with a sex-related crime. In August, 44-year-old Peter Crane, another Florida DCF investigator, was charged with sexually molesting two five-year-old girls. In June, 46-year-old Jean Lacroix, also a Florida DCF investigator, was charged with having sex with a teen who was part of a prostitution ring composed exclusively of foster children. 

These are the people Floridians are supposed to trust with supervising children and families in distress. 

NEXT: Some States Seek To Split the Difference on Medicaid

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Holy fuck, that guy from Powder really let himself go.

    1. I thought it was Jared Loughner.

      1. But HM’s take was funnier.

      2. That’s not Jim Norton is it?

  2. I’m pretty perplexed about all of this. Looking at the guy’s photograph, I don’t get why he’d need to coerce coworkers into sexual favors; bitches should be flocking to him, dropping, and spreading their legs the moment they hit the ground.

    1. Lacks the luxuriant facial hair. Perhaps Warty shaved?

    2. Dude, the guy is hairless and doesn’t have horns. Did you hit your head on something this morning?

      1. Hey dumbass, Warty does chemo once a year in lieu of bathing and also because he says it “feeds the inner me,” whatever that means.

        1. That’s stupid. You’re stupid.

          1. Typical mongoloidal response. At least you got past the grunting and beating your chest this time and got to multi-syllable words.

            1. trolls gonnat roll

              1. Back to typing with your hooves, I see.

                1. I spit my entire 44oz BANNED cup of Coke after reading that.

                  May I ask why all the hate towards Warty?

                  1. Because Warty can take it.

                    1. Because hate sustains me.

                  2. Because he’s the worst. He’s the Britta of Hit’n’Run.

                    1. Because he’s not our hero. He’s a silent guardian, a watchful protector: the Dark Knight (RACIST).

        2. That’s just to beat back the Mega-AIDS and mutant crabs he has. Nothing can kill off his hirsuteness. Looks like you did hit your head on something this morning. I hope it hurt.

        3. Like chemo could touch Warty’s hair.

    3. “Can you blame him?”

    4. Is that his head or is his neck blowing a bubble?

  3. Yeah, it’s incredible that people who would want to take advantage of women and children that are in trouble with or in the care of the state would immediately gravitate to a job where they have power over those people. I mean, who would have thought?

    1. *Thunk. THUNK. Jesus, stop fucking up them grammars.

      /Clueless social welfare crusader attempting witty rebuke.

    2. Shocking. Next thing you are going to tell me is guys who have a thing for little girls try to date single moms.

      1. TBH some guys go for single moms because they’re much more desperate to get a man and don’t play the same headgames as childless women tend to.

        1. And because with a single mom, you know the plumbing works.

          1. Depends on whether you want the plumbing to work. Infertility = free birth control for life.

            1. So we could just sterilize Sandra Fluke? Because I’m really down with that as I do not want her to breed.

        2. Having a little dating trouble, Tulpa Dumb?

          1. I hope your address parser chokes on an AFP/FPO mailing address and dies.

            1. Only if you wrote it, Tulpa Dumb.

    3. It’s like why do people act surprised when a bully from high school becomes a local cop and stalks girls he went to high school with? Hel-lo!!!

      1. Are you denigrating yet another profession? You’re like a professional profession denigrator.

    4. I’m sure they have background checks, just like for TSA workers.

  4. Dammit, Gary, it’s not about sex, it’s about trust!

  5. I’m from the government and I’m here to help.

  6. It would be bad enough to be stuck in the system. But the thought of being stuck in the system and dealing with that troglodyte is too much to bear.

  7. It’s reassuring to think that someone like this could just arbitrarily take my children.

  8. OK, what this guy did is obviously wrong and he deserves to be fired and prosecuted, but it wasn’t really a coercive thing. He didn’t fabricate a positive test and try to blackmail her into having sex with him; she legitimately failed the test and then he attempted a quid pro quo.

    His crime is against the state, not against this woman.

    1. No, the crime is against the woman too. Failing the drug test should not mean she has fuck this weasel.

      1. The penalties for failing the drug test are part of the law. This weasel didn’t create them.

        1. And one of those penalties is not screwing. He made up his own penalty and inflicted it on this poor woman. That is a crime against her.

          1. They didn’t have sex, so he didn’t inflict any penalty on her. He merely proposed an alternative penalty. Sort of like a DIY plea bargain.

            Obviously, he’s a weirdo who deserves to be locked up, but he’s not rapist-level bad.

    2. His crime is against the state, not against this woman.

      Kinda, but not exactly. His crime is also against her children, because they should not have their home life be dependent on their mother sucking this guy’s dick. Also, if she had voluntarily agreed to it, what would have kept him from continuing to blackmail her in the future?

      1. Their home life is dependent on their mother not doing drugs. She’s the one threatening their home life (assuming for the sake of argument that the drug laws are worth having)

        1. No, their mother’s drug use had a consequence, whatever that may be. This guy changed that calculus by saying her status would be dependent on her having sex with him. That is not affecting them?

          1. If you subscribe to the idea that her drug use threatens the children, I suppose you could claim that he was indirectly threatening the children by enabling that drug use. Of course, you could say the same about a social worker who didn’t report the drug test result out of pity, with no sex requirement.

    3. I’m pretty sure blackmail doesn’t depend on whether the underlying threat is legal or not. And coercive sex is likely not legal either. Probably a crime to exchange discretionary powers for compensation, too.

      1. Well yeah, obviously the guy committed honest services fraud and solicitation of bribes. But those aren’t crimes against the woman.

    4. it wasn’t really a coercive thing.

      So, next time a cop pulls you over for speeding, runs up the usual two or three extra moving vehicle violations that they always can without any effort, and offers you a deal:

      (1) Go downtown, have your car torn apart for a search, spend a night in jail, pay a massive fine, and have your record trashed, or

      (2) Suck his cock by the side of the road.

      You won’t feel the least bit coerced? That he is proposing nothing more than a voluntary exchange between equals?

      1. On top of everything, I think this is felony sexual assault, too.

      2. Not analogous. Cops have the legal discretion to ticket you or not. This guy is required by law to report a positive drug test.

        Remember, in the eyes of the law, this woman was endangering her children by using drugs.

        1. Not analogous.

          I think it is, from the perspective of the lawbreaker. In both cases, they’ve been “caught”, and are being offered leniency in exchange for sex.

          Whether the government agent is legally required to report them or not is irrelevant to the question of whether they are being coerced or are freely giving consent.

          1. Look at my serial killer example above. In that case too, the victim has every reason to believe that they will suffer coercion if they don’t consent to sex. But you’d have to be bonkers to claim that quid pro quo is coercive.

            1. The problem with your serial killer example is that the homeowner demanding sex and the serial killer are two completely different people.

              An LEO using his power as an LEO to obtain sex, is relying on his colleagues elsewhere in the total state to hand out the bad consequences, much like the smooth-talking capo is relying on the goons cracking their knuckles in the background to dish the pain in your classic extortion scenario.

      3. I think Tulpa is saying this is more like solicitation of prostitution, or solicitation of bribery, than extortion.

        Let’s say the guy had done his job 100% scrupulously. If that happens, as soon as she fails the drug test, BAM – she gets the penalty.

        So he’s not threatening her with a penalty she would not have received but for his action; the penalty is a given. He’s letting her avoid a penalty she’s already due in exchange for sex.

        If he said, “If you don’t have sex with me, I’ll mark on the form that you failed your drug test even though you passed it,” that would be extortion.

        1. Yes, that’s it Fluffy. I’m hiring you as my spokesperson.

          1. I had a feeling that I belonged. I had a feeling I could be someone.

            You got a fast car. You gotta make a dec

            1. Why does the fucking comment box keep cutting comments?

            2. It probably noticed that you forgot “fast enough that we could fly away” in your lyrics.

              1. No, I removed that, but the box fucked up the rest of it, and I’m not retyping three fucking paragraphs.

        2. Its still extortion, because it rests on coercion.

          Unless you think that being threatened with losing your kids/going to jail/getting fined/etc. unless you get on your knees isn’t coercion.

          1. I’m sure Tulpa is just doing the gadfly thing and doesn’t really believe that state official extortion is okay if there’s an underlying offense by the victim, but Fluffy? I’m saddened at his new lust for violent compulsion.

            1. I never said it was OK. It’s solicitation of bribes and honest services fraud, both of which are felonies.

                1. I disagree.

          2. So if there’s a serial killer chasing a woman down the street and she knocks on my door, and I say I’ll only let her in if she has sex with me, have I committed extortion?

            1. Wait, what was that about a strawman dressed up as a serial killer again?

            2. I wasn’t expecting Tulpa, of all people, to analogize our criminal justice sytem to a serial killer.

              1. Analogies relate things that are dissimilar, not similar.

                Back to SAT prep for you!

                broccoli:firetruck :: green::red

                is not saying that broccoli is like firetrucks or that green is like red.

                1. Is that a proper analogy? Shouldn’t it be broc:green::firetruck:red?

                  1. I formatted it wrong. But you get the idea.

    5. Wow Tulpa just wow. You’ve outdone yourself. I’m in awe.

  9. I mean, there’s no indication that this guy was actually a danger to anyone in the system.

    1. We could say the same about you, and I guarantee no one would let you within 50 feet of their children.

    2. See, I would have thought that someone willing to accept bribes in exchange for not enforcing the law is by definition a danger to the people who are supposed to be protected by those laws.

      1. No more than someone who refuses to enforce the law without requiring sex.

        I seriously doubt Reason would be breathlessly criticizing a social worker who didn’t report a positive drug test because they opposed the drug laws.

        1. One is just THE OTHER IS NOT.

          1. From the law’s POV, neither one is just. As far as the law is concerned, drug use endangers one’s children.

            1. I don’t give a shit about ‘the law’s point of view’.

        2. No more than someone who refuses to enforce the law without requiring sex.

          Obviously wrong.

          In your example, the person making the exception has a legitimate, predictable criteria for looking the other way. They think the law is wrong, and refuse to apply it to people who they think meet their criteria.

          In the second example, no such legitimate criteria exists, and the criteria that DOES exist is unpredictable and unevenly applied.

          That difference alone is enough to prove that your claim “No more than someone who refuses to enforce the law without requiring sex” is patently false.

          The second person, by any measure, is more dangerous to society and individuals.

          1. OK, how about this: A woman tests positive for drugs. The DCF guy says he is not going to turn her in because he thinks drug laws are wrong. As a thank you, she sucks his dick all the way to his balls.

            ^^This^^ is an all-around winner.

      2. I’m not entirely on Tulpa’s side here, but what if she had failed the drug test and said, “If you look the other way here, I’ll show you my tits!” and the guy said, “Um…OK!” and she said, “Thanks for getting me out of another jam, tits!”

        Basically bribery and extortion are always going to be two sides of the same coin. Any time an official solicits a bribe, you could look at it as extortion if you wanted to.

        1. There is an additional creepiness factor in that he allegedly proposed the alternative punishment. But yeah, he would be just as guilty of honest services fraud etc. in the situation you posit.

          1. I think it depends on one additional factor: if she suggested bribery. Even if he chose the bribe.

            Conversation A:

            DCF Jerk: You failed this drug test, I have to report it.
            Chick: Can we work something out?
            DCF Jerk: Have sex with me!
            Chick: How about I negotiate you down to just showing you my tits?
            DCF Jerk: Sold!

            Conversation B:

            DCF Jerk: You failed this drug test, I have to report it.
            Chick: Woe is me!
            DCF Jerk: You know, I might be persuaded to look the other way here if you have sex with me.

            Conversation B is worse than Conversation A. We don’t know how the actual conversation between these two proceeded.

        2. what if she had failed the drug test and said, “If you look the other way here, I’ll show you my tits!”

          When she makes the offer, she isn’t coercing anyone.

          When he threatens to mess up her life unless . . ., he is coercing her.

          1. Right, but that would mean the crime of solicitation of bribery can’t exist.

            Because any instance where a magistrate conditions waiving a penalty in exchange for any consideration whatsoever would be extortion, and any instance where a magistrate withholds a benefit in the advance of consideration would also be extortion.

            Since the crime exists, it’s got to refer to something.

    3. Thomas resigned the next day and moved immediately to Pennsylvania, “to be near family.” He was arrested this week in Pennsylvania and awaits extradition back to Florida. Meanwhile, investigators in Volusia County have uncovered more incidents of extortion and harassment, including one case in which Thomas allegedly called and texted one of his female cases “late at night….complimented how she looked, invited her to the beach and to go gambling, and asked her about body massages and sex.”

      Right, no indications he was a danger to anyone.

      1. I’m rather shocked that extortion is okay with anyone here. That’s what this is.

        1. It’s not extortion. He’s not creating the threat of force, the law is.

          1. It probably is in Florida. The threat doesn’t have to involve direct force. It can even be limited to threatening to accuse someone of a crime or even just threatening to embarrass the victim by revealing secret information. And the gain doesn’t have to be financial if you’re compelling someone to do something they don’t want to do.

            There are some exceptions for public officials, but that’s only when acting within the scope of their authority. Like a cop threatening to shove you in the car after you’ve been arrested. N/A here.

            I’m no expert in this area, but I’m pretty sure this is extortion.

            1. Extortion is the product of coercion.

              Threatening somebody with legal consequences unless they do something they would otherwise not do is coercion.

              1. So, its not extortion when a mob boss does it, either, because he’s not creating the threat of force, the mob is?

                1. I believe that’s correct, if I’m reading the comments right. I mean, it’s wrong, but a correct interpretation of the wrongness.

                2. The mob’s actions are predicated entirely on the mob boss’s decisions. Not a good analogy.

                  The law that takes children away from drug users is not predicated on the social worker’s decisions.

              2. blackmail, coercion, bribery, etc can get thorny.

                very tricky area of law

                here’s how prof volokh addressed it recently


                very interesting stuff imo

      2. I’m not seeing any danger there. He could just as easily be a socially clumsy fellow who doesn’t know how to talk to women so he does it too directly.

        Please don’t tell me that Reasonoids think that wanting to have consensual body massages and sex with adult women makes a man “dangerous”.

  10. Did his eyebrows leave him in order to make a separate plea deal?

    My character in the first Saint’s Row game (you could customize the design) looked *exactly* like this guy. Damn, wish I had a screen shot. Seriously, it’s spot on.

    1. I think his plan was to be so unattractive, even the bull queers in prison wouldn’t want him.

  11. DCF is a wretched hive of scum and villainy. It goes through Directors (Secretaries, technically) like shit through a goose. Anyone with the least bit of conscience runs screaming away if they’re dumb enough to take the job. The rest go down when scandals like this pile up. I would never call DCF on someone unless I thought they were literally killing their child.

    1. Yup. I know someone who worked for Florida DCF for a while. He hated it, and spent almost his entire time there looking for another job, and convincing co-workers that the management didn’t give a shit about kids, only making sure that paperwork was filled out properly. A lot of them later told him he’d been right after they left.

  12. DCF is a wretched hive of scum and villainy.

    Then people using their services should be cautious.

    1. I bet the Mos Eisley cantina and its crowd was modeled after The DCF’s offices.

      1. What’s “Mos Eisley”?

        1. It’s an alternate-universe version of DC that’s significantly wealthier, safer, and more moral than our one.

          1. Ah, I see. I always thought of it as more of a Shanghai or Singapore, while Coruscant accurately represented DC.

            And Dagobah is Florida south of Alligator Alley.

            1. Hoth is Minnesota, the Gungan city is Jamaica, and the giant space worm is DC (it’s full of parasites called mynocks).

        2. Apparently watching the 2004 version back to back caused your brain to seal all SW knowledge behind a memory barrier.

          I told you to rent the 1996 VHS version but nooooooooo, sloopy knows everything.

          1. When George Lucas dies, I’m going to celebrate by watching the original theatrical versions back-to-back.

            1. When George Lucas dies,


              1. Spielberg, I believe.

            2. Peter Jackson-made Old Republic- or Legacy-era saga after that. Y/N?

            3. RPA, I read somewhere that some fanboi has actually remastered the first movie, and his version is significantly better in every way than any official version. I saw a few screenshots, and it looked better.

              So I would recommend you give that one a try.

              1. Who shoots first? That’s all I want to know.

              2. Pretty cool. The severed arm continuity error always bugged the heck out of me as a kid.

              3. Less cool is that he wants to redo the prequels. Unless he means kidnapping George Lucas and the bearable members of the prequels cast and forcing them to reshoot the damn things with a better script and acting, I’m not sure why he would want to embark on such a project.

                1. That’s it p.

                  He can do the prequels if he wants. That doesn’t mean I have to watch them.

                  1. Oh, I don’t know. You can do quite a bit with good editing. At least make the films less bad. I’d splice in scenes from some other film, too.

  13. The victim later told her boyfriend what had happened and the boyfriend called Thomas to confront him.

    Was the call redirected to a suicide intervention hotline?

    1. He works for DCF, not the police department.

  14. This sounds like the plot of an excellent porno.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.