Escambia Deputy Fired, Investigated For Alleged Non-Consensual Sex Act

July 16, 2014

The Escambia Sheriff’s Office has fired a deputy trainee for an alleged “non-consensual sex act” against a woman while he was answering a call.

After an adult female made a complaint with the Sheriff’s Office that Chris Majors had committed the sex act, an investigation was immediately launched by the ECSO and the State Attorney’s Office. When questioned by investigators, Majors “admitted to engaging in a sexual act on duty, although he denied it was non-consensual,” according to a written statement from the Escambia County Sheriff’s Office.

Physical evidence, including DNA, is still being evaluated and based upon the joint investigation Majors is potentially facing multiple, severe felony charges, the statement says.

“Majors was a probationary employee,” Sheriff David Morgan said in a written statement Tuesday. “That means there are fewer hoops to jump through to terminate this employee, which is exactly what I did this morning.”

“Majors betrayed the trust that the community and I placed in him. He has brought disgrace to the Sheriff’s Office, to the community, and to our profession. Good riddance. We will actively work with the victim in this case to ensure justice is served,” Morgan continued.

Majors was hired at the Escambia County Jail in 2008. Shortly after the transfer of the jail from the Sheriff’s Office to the Escambia County Commission last October, Majors applied to become a law enforcement officer with the ECSO. He had just completed the department’s field training program five weeks ago. Prior to that, he would have answered calls only with a senior officer, the Sheriff’s Office said.

Comments

14 Responses to “Escambia Deputy Fired, Investigated For Alleged Non-Consensual Sex Act”

  1. Connie Lee on July 19th, 2014 9:53 am

    Ewww, so so sad

  2. BBInTheKnow on July 18th, 2014 7:08 am

    First of all I don’t condone Mr. Majors behavior but …sex while on duty or on the job happens all the time in local and federal L.E, even in little ole Pensacola. The only difference this time is that someone screamed non consensual and the deputy got found out. Mr. Majors next time remember no means no and/or never peeve off a woman who can have your job

  3. Don on July 16th, 2014 2:09 pm

    IF the D.A does not proceed on this then that means those hired to “protect and serve” are truly above the law,if a “probationary” officer can walk away unscathed imagine a 15 year tenured officer….the citizens of this community WILL be watching this case closely!

  4. paul on July 16th, 2014 1:10 pm

    If they’re taking DNA and the results come back positive I think he should be guilty on all charges.. his word isn’t good anymore if he would has sex on duty consensual or not..

  5. fred on July 16th, 2014 10:22 am

    Innocent until proven guilty is for criminal proceedings, which this is not…yet. The deputy admitted to a firing offense (sexual act with the citizen while on duty). He was fired, not convicted. Now, if the State Attorney decides to move forward with an investigation and go for indictment and prosecution, then we’re talking about proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
    But, really, do you want deputies doing this on duty, even with consent?

  6. Matt on July 16th, 2014 10:10 am

    Does not matter if he is guilty of sex charges. He DID admit to a sexual act while on duty. That is plenty of reason to fire him. This is the very reason is against the rules durring duty, to keep just this type of thing from tainting the whole department when a question of weather it was against her will or not.

  7. Mic Hall on July 16th, 2014 10:09 am

    If it was non-consensual he should be convicted. Never to work in ANY law enforcement ever again.

    If it was consensual he needs to be FIRED! I know if I had sex at work, no matter what, I would be fired. I am pretty sure that is in the regs for law enforcement too.

  8. Ray on July 16th, 2014 9:13 am

    What every happen to inasent untill proven guilty sounds like the sheriff is a one man jury their are two sides of every story.

  9. AC on July 16th, 2014 8:59 am

    @ Freda Whaley:

    “Non -consensual sex act? Isn’t that rape?”

    Not necessarily. A “sex act” is not limited to sexual intercourse. It could have been unwanted touching of certain areas or other acts that did not include intercourse. The elements of the crime of rape usually requires certain criteria which I do not want to write on a family-friendly website (if you know what I mean). There are many other sex acts that do not rise to the level of rape, but are still illegal. Not sure what specifically he did, or what he is accused of doing, but it may or may not be actual rape as defined by statute.

  10. haley on July 16th, 2014 8:42 am

    Good point Freda. What does non-consensual sex act mean? Kind of a wierd story. Sounds like rape to me. Why is it not referred to as rape?

  11. Gembeaux on July 16th, 2014 8:00 am

    I’m with Freda. Non-consensual sex is rape. Any woman who has been forced to have sex against her will, will certainly kmow it was rape. Why try to pretty it up? (And, yes, I know that he hasn’t been found guilty of that charge…yet.)

  12. Tim on July 16th, 2014 7:54 am

    I think it’s funny (not really funny but sad) that Sheriff Morgan has basically convicted this man from the start. What happened to innocent until proven guilty. I think the guy should lose his job based on the fact that he had some type of sexual intercourse while on the job, however to make a statement such as he did is a little ridiculous and unproffesional. If the man infact did commit a crime, I hope he pays. However the proper steps need to be taken before he should be labeled “convicted”.

  13. Freda Whaley on July 16th, 2014 7:14 am

    Non -consensual sex act? Isn’t that rape?

  14. Perdido fisherman on July 16th, 2014 5:41 am

    This does not surprise me, I just hope that sheriff Morgan sticks it to this creep, no pun intended.

Written by William Reynolds · Filed Under News