Criminal Defense Lawyer Answers FAQs About Entrapment in Florida

September 10, 2025 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense Social Share

In criminal law, the term “entrapment” is thrown around quite a lot. But there is sometimes a misunderstanding of what entrapment actually is, and when entrapment can be used as a legal defense to a criminal charge. This blog will answer the most frequently asked questions about entrapment in Florida.

#1 – What is entrapment?

Entrapment occurs when law enforcement officers (or other government agents) successfully induce someone to commit a crime that was not predisposed to commit it. In other words, they create a crime that otherwise wouldn’t have occurred, for the purpose of prosecuting someone.

#2 – Is it always entrapment if law enforcement is involved?

No – law enforcement is allowed to perform undercover operations that lead to the arrest of defendants in criminal cases. The involvement of law enforcement in an offense (e.g. posing as a child in an online solicitation sting) may open the door for an entrapment defense – but it does not guarantee it will be effective.

Police can legally give someone the opportunity to commit a crime. However, law enforcement cannot manufacture a crime by forcing, coercing, or persuading someone to commit an illegal act who otherwise would not have.

#3 – When does police action cross the line into entrapment?

This is a key question – as police can conduct undercover operations, but cannot do whatever they want to manufacture a person’s arrest. Police action becomes entrapment when either of the following occurs:

• Law enforcement’s actions so egregiously, that any prosecution against the defendant would be fundamentally unjust and violate the defendant’s due process rights (objective entrapment)
• Law enforcement used impermissible methods of inducement to get a non-predisposed defendant to commit an offense for the purpose of arresting them (subjective entrapment)

#4 – What happens if I successfully argue entrapment?

If someone successfully argues that either objective or subjective entrapment has occurred, the proper remedy is the dismissal of all charges against the defendant that resulted from the police activity. Fla. Stat. 777.201; State v. Munoz, 629 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 1993). This means entrapment is a total defense, not simply a “mitigator.”

#5 – Tell me more about objective entrapment

Objective entrapment is less commonly argued than subjective entrapment) also known as statutory entrapment), but still exists as a defense in Florida. Objective entrapment focuses on whether law enforcement conduct was so egregious that prosecuting a defendant would violate their due process rights. Dippolito v. State, 275 So.3d 653 (Fla 4th DCA 2019). 

Because law enforcement is permitted to conduct undercover operations, the fact that someone was ensnared in a sting does not mean their due process was violated (according to courts). 

However, examples of cases where courts would likely find objective entrapment due to “egregious” police misconduct include:

• Police manufacture meth at a station to sell to members of the community, then charge them when they attempt to purchase it. State v. Williams, 623 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 1993)
• An undercover cop holds a gun to the head of a passerby and tells him to steal another person’s wallet. The passerby does so, then is arrested for robbery.
• An undercover officer takes a recovering drug addict into their home, then offers them cocaine and threatens to kick them out if they don’t take it. The recovering addict takes it and is arrested for drug possession.
• Police sell and send child pornography tapes in the mail to a person for purposes of arresting and charging them. Farley v. State, 848 So.2d 393, 397-98 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)

Objective entrapment is quite a high bar. Short of blatantly illegal law enforcement activity (e.g. manufacturing drugs, transmitting child pornography) or other police actions that “shock the conscience,” an objective entrapment argument generally will not succeed.

#6 – Tell me more about subjective entrapment

Subjective (or statutory) entrapment is codified under Fla. Stat. 777.201. It is more commonly argued that objective entrapment, as it is a lower legal bar to clear in most cases.  

If subjective entrapment is argued, the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that they were induced to commit the charged offense by law enforcement. Inducement is not automatically found if police were involved – it requires the use of prohibited tactics such as:

• Threats or coercion
• Coaxing, cajoling or trickery
• Promises of friendship or affection
• Promises of monetary reward

Inducement must go beyond merely giving someone “an opportunity” to commit the charged offense. It must involve police conduct that risked ensnaring even a defendant who was not “ready and willing, without persuasion” to commit the crime. State v. Liptak, 277 So.2d 19 (Fla. 1973)

If inducement is established, the burden shifts to the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was “predisposed” to commit the charged offense. Predisposition is defined as being “ready and willing, without persuasion” to commit a crime – with law enforcement simply providing the opportunity for the defendant to do so.

If the State fails to prove predisposition after inducement has been established, the charges are to be dismissed (either at a pretrial hearing or at trial – whenever the defense is raised). However, if predisposition is found, a subjective entrapment defense will fail even if inducement occurred.

#7 – How is the predisposition (or lack thereof) of a defendant determined?

In establishing a defendant’s predisposition to commit the charged offense(s), the State may provide evidence of any of the following during a pretrial hearing (on a motion to dismiss) or at trial to the jury: 

• The defendant’s prior criminal activities 
• The defendant’s reputation for such activities 
• Reasonable suspicion of a defendant’s involvement in such activity 
• The defendant’s ready acquiescence of the crime

The use of an entrapment defense opens the door for the admission of a defendant’s criminal history if inducement has been established and a defendant’s record is relevant to proving predisposition. State v. Panebianco, 370 So.3d 345 (Fla. 2d. DCA 2023)

#8 – Can an entrapment defense be raised before trial? During trial?

Subjective and objective entrapment defenses can be raised before trial. Objective entrapment is a question for the judge – not a jury – so this must be raised via a pretrial motion to dismiss. Dippolito v. State, 275 So.3d 653 (Fla 4th DCA 2019). 

Subjective entrapment can be raised both before trial (in a pretrial motion to dismiss, like objective entrapment) and at trial for the jury to decide if entrapment occurred. State v. Munoz, 629 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 1993)

#9 – Does entrapment apply if a confidential informant (CI) pressures someone?

Because a confidential informant is acting as an “agent” of the police, an entrapment defense can be raised in response to a CI’s conduct if it constitutes either objective or subjective entrapment. 

For example, a CI cannot threaten to harm or kill someone if they don’t sell them drugs as part of a police sting, or promise them a sexual relationship in exchange for them committing a crime. Madera v. State, 943 So. 2d 960 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)

In sum, entrapment is a key defense in many Florida criminal cases where law enforcement played a role in facilitating the criminal activity. Though not all undercover police conduct is considered entrapment, law enforcement may not engage in conduct so egregious as to violate a defendant’s due process rights – or induce a non-predisposed defendant to act criminally.

By understanding the answers to these FAQs, someone will be much better informed if they or a loved one are ever charged with an offense (e.g. online solicitation of an undercover officer posing as a minor or drug-related charges resulting from police use of a CI) that raises a possible entrapment defense.

If someone is charged with an offense and is seeking to argue entrapment, it is critical to find experienced and trusted legal representation as soon as possible. This vital decision could make the difference in whether or not a person is subject to a lengthy prison term, hefty fines, and even whether they are required to register as a sex offender for the rest of their life.

Criminal Defense Attorney in Tallahassee, FL

Don Pumphrey, Jr. is a Former Prosecutor, Former State Police Officer, Lifetime Member of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; for over 25 years as a private defense attorney who is Trusted, Experienced, Aggressive in Criminal Defense as a Trial Attorney, Criminal Lawyer, Criminal Defense Lawyer for the accused in Florida State Courts located in Tallahassee, Florida but handling cases throughout the State of Florida.

Don Pumphrey, Jr. and the Tallahassee criminal defense lawyers at Pumphrey Law have decades of experience fighting drug charges on behalf of clients and winning. Call Pumphrey Law now at (850) 681-7777 to learn more about what we can do for you. Our lawyers will be happy to provide you with a free consultation.

  Social Share