Defenses to Online Solicitation of a Minor in Florida

July 9, 2025 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense, Sex Crimes, Social Media Social Share

In Florida, online solicitation of a minor (someone under the age of 18) is a very serious offense. It is typically charged as a third-degree felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine. However, if someone misrepresents their age in the process of soliciting a minor online, this is considered a second-degree felony – punishable by up to 15 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

If someone is charged with online solicitation of a minor under Fla. Stat. Section 847.0135(3), this can create a very stressful situation. However, there are many available legal defenses to this charge, one or more of which may be used in a given criminal case.

This blog will discuss defenses to a charge of online solicitation of a minor, as well as the elements of the crime and potential next steps if someone is arrested and formally charged.

For someone to be proven guilty of online solicitation of a minor under Fla. Stat. Section 847.0135(3), the State must establish all of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

• The defendant knowingly used a computer, online service, internet service, local bulletin board service or any device capable of electronic data transmission
• The defendant used the device to seduce, solicit, lure or entice a minor to engage in sexual activity (or attempt to do so)
• The communication was with a minor (under the age of 18) or someone believed by the defendant to be a minor
• The purpose of the communication was to facilitate the engagement in any unlawful sexual conduct or sexual activity with the minor

Note: Florida law permits an online solicitation of a minor charge even if a law enforcement sting is the reason for the solicitation (the defendant solicits an officer posting as a minor while online). However, it must be proven that the defendant actually believed they were soliciting a real minor at the time. 

If someone is charged with online solicitation of a minor or someone believed to be a minor (847.0135(3)(a)), or solicitation of a minor through an adult parent or guardian (847.0135(3)(b)), various defenses may be available. The first of these is entrapment.

There are two types of entrapment: objective and subjective. Objective entrapment involves law enforcement conduct that is so egregious, it violates the due process rights of the defendant and contaminates the legal proceedings against them. Dippolito v. State, 275 So.3d 653 (Fla 4th DCA 2019). 

The fact that someone was ensnared in a police sting (solicited a police officer pretending to be a minor) is not itself objective entrapment. As Dippolito notes, the conduct of law enforcement must constitute such an egregious due process violation that it “shocks the conscience” (such as police officers manufacturing drugs to sell them) for objective entrapment to occur. 

More often in solicitation cases, a subjective entrapment defense is used. This is also called “statutory entrapment,” and it is codified in Fla. Stat. Section 777.201.

If a subjective entrapment defense is used, the defense must first prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the State induced the defendant to solicit using methods such as:

• Cajoling and trickery
• Promises of friendship, monetary gain or affection
• Badgering or coercion

If inducement is established, the State must then prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was predisposed to act criminally. In other words, the State must establish that the defendant would have acted criminally anyway regardless of the inducement. Munoz v. State, 629 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 1993). If the State fails, this defeats an online solicitation charge.

Another potential defense is lack of sexual intent or actual solicitation. Though the law does not require the defendant to explicitly request a particular sexual act from a minor online, Fla. Stat. Section 847.0135(3) still does require soliciting, luring, enticing or seducing a minor to engage in sexual activity. 

In Grohs v. State, 944 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal defined each of these terms in the statute. According to the court: 

• “Solicit” means to command, encourage, hire, or request another person to engage in specific conduct, “to entice or lure especially into evil” and “to proposition (someone) especially as or in the character of a prostitute” 
• “Seduce” means “to carry out the physical seduction of: entice to sexual intercourse” 
• “Lure” generally means “to draw with a hint of pleasure or gain: attract actively and strongly”
• “Entice” typically means “to attract artfully or adroitly or by arousing hope or desire: tempt.” It also means to lure, induce, tempt, incite, or persuade a person to do a thing.

If someone’s online communications with a minor (or person they believed to be a minor) do not satisfy any of the above definitions, a defense attorney may argue that they did not commit the offense of online solicitation as a matter of law.

An additional potentially relevant defense is a lack of belief in the minor’s supposed age. If an actual minor is solicited, mistake of age is not a defense in Florida. But if the alleged solicitation occurred during a police sting (the minor was fictional), someone may be able to argue they did not believe they were speaking with a minor. The credibility of this claim heavily depends on the content of the communications. 

In cases involving police stings, the State must prove a genuine belief that someone thought they were soliciting a minor. This makes lack of belief a potentially strong defense if there is clear evidence of someone suspecting they were actually communicating with a law enforcement officer. 

Though it is not a direct defense to solicitation, someone may also be charged with unlawful use of a two-way communications device to facilitate a felony alongside a charge of felony online solicitation. However, Florida’s courts have held that charging unlawful use and solicitation for the same course of conduct violates a defendant’s protection against double jeopardy. Lee v. State, 258 So. 3d 1297 (Fla. 2018). 

If someone is charged with both of these offenses for the same alleged conduct, an experienced and aggressive criminal defense attorney can move to dismiss the unlawful use of a two-way communications device charge on double jeopardy grounds.

Another potential defense is insufficient evidence or mistaken identity. Even if a solicitation did occur, the State may be unable to credibly link the defendant to the electronic communication. If there are IP address issues, potentially hacked accounts, or multiple users of a device or account, this can all be used as a component of a solicitation defense. 

An additional potential defense is moving for suppression of the communications, which may prevent their use in court. This may be an especially effective defense strategy in cases where the allegedly solicitous messages were exchanged on a platform (such as a dating app or online forum). 

In cases involving alleged solicitation of an actual minor, it may take months (or longer) for law enforcement to obtain the relevant records of communications they seek to introduce against the defendant at trial. Moreover, these logs are often provided in the form of a report that is created in response to a law enforcement subpoena. 

If the State seeks to introduce these chat records as a business record, a viable defense may be to move for their exclusion under State v. Belvin, 986 So.2d 516 (Fla. 2008).

Belvin held business records (which can include online chat reports from third parties) generated in response to law enforcement subpoena are inadmissible in court unless:

• They satisfy all the other business records exception (90.803(6)) requirements (kept in the regular course of business activity, created at or near the time of the event, using information from someone with knowledge)
• The records custodian testifies and the defendant has the opportunity to cross-examine them regarding the legitimacy of the records

A final defense to online solicitation may be the fact that the alleged solicitous conduct did not actually occur online (or through the use of any other medium discussed by Fla. Stat. Section 847.0135(3)). If this is the case, someone may be able to successfully move for dismissal of the charge as a matter of law – though face-to-face solicitation (offline) is still illegal in Florida. 

Though there are many lawful defenses to a charge of online solicitation of a minor in Florida, certain others are not considered legally valid. These include:

• “I didn’t know the minor’s age”: If an actual minor was involved, the statute outlaws online solicitation – mistake of age is not a defense.
• “We never met/nothing happened”: No physical contact is required, the crime is complete upon electronic solicitation with criminal intent.
• “The minor initiated contact”: Though this fact may be relevant to an entrapment defense in some cases (involving police posing as minors), online solicitation remains illegal regardless of who initiated the chat.
• “They willingly participated”: Minors cannot legally consent to sexual activity (including online solicitation) under Florida law. Thus, this is not a valid defense.

In sum, online solicitation of a minor is a very serious felony offense. It is punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine (without enhancements) and up to 15 years and a $10,000 fine if the solicitor misrepresents their age in the process of soliciting a minor (or someone they believe to be a minor) online.

However, there are many valid legal defenses to a charge of online solicitation. These include entrapment, lack of intent to solicit, lack of belief in age (if the minor was law enforcement), insufficient evidence, mistaken identity, and more.

It is also critical to note that the elements of solicitation are entirely subsumed by the elements of traveling to meet a minor (Fla. Stat. 847.0135(4)). This means that if someone is also charged with traveling to meet a minor (often seen in police stings), successfully defeating a solicitation charge also defeats the traveling charge that is based on that solicitation.

If someone is charged with solicitation of a minor, 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 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