Defenses to Traveling to Meet a Minor in Florida

July 8, 2025 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense, Sex Crimes Social Share

In Florida, traveling to meet a minor for the purpose of sexual activity is a very serious criminal offense. Under Fla. Stat. Section 847.0135(4), traveling to meet a minor is a second-degree felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

Though some cases involve an allegation that someone traveled to meet an actual minor for sexual activity, traveling to meet a minor charges often arise in the context of police stings – where someone is accused of traveling to meet a fictional minor (police decoy). 

If someone is arrested and formally charged with traveling to meet a minor, this can seem like a hopeless situation. However, there are many available defenses to this charge, one or more of which may be utilized depending on the facts of a case. This article will discuss the offense of traveling to meet a minor in Florida and available defenses to this felony charge.

For someone to be convicted of traveling to meet a minor in Florida, the State must prove all of the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

• The defendant used a computer, online service, internet service or electronic device (such as a phone or tablet) to communicate with another person
• During the communication, the defendant intended to seduce, solicit, lure or entice a child (under the age of 18) or someone believed to be a child to engage in unlawful sexual activity
• The defendant then traveled or attempted to travel to a location within Florida with the intent to meet the minor (or person believed to be a minor) for the purpose of engaging in unlawful sexual activity

As traveling to meet a minor is often charged alongside felony online solicitation of a minor (Fla. Stat. Section 847.0135(3)) and felony unlawful use of a two-way communications device (934.215), a first step in a traveling defense is to determine whether charging all three of these crimes together violates someone’s constitutional protection against double jeopardy. 

Florida’s courts have consistently applied the Blockburger test – which asks whether the elements of one charged offense are entirely subsumed by the elements of another – in finding that solicitation and traveling charges for the same course of conduct violates double jeopardy. 

This was officially announced by the Florida Supreme Court in State v. Shelley. State v. Shelley, 176 So.3d 914 (Fla. 2015). The Shelley court ruled that if charges for both online solicitation and traveling to meet a minor stem from a single course of conduct, the solicitation charge is subsumed by the traveling charge and cannot be brought separately. Under Shelley, the same is true if unlawful use of a two-way communications device is also charged. 

Whether bringing these three charges together violates double jeopardy depends on whether the solicitation/unlawful use and traveling are separate and distinct criminal acts, or part of the same course of conduct. Factors courts use to determine this include:

• Whether there are multiple victims
• Whether the solicitations occurred in multiple locations
• Whether there has been a “temporal break” between offenses (the longer a break, the more likely the solicitation and traveling can be seen as separate courses of conduct)

But even if solicitation and unlawful use of a two-way communications device charges are dismissed, the traveling charge remains.

What are the defenses to traveling to meet a minor?

One defense is that there was no underlying intent to commit a sexual act. Fla. Stat. Section 847.0135(4) requires that the defendant had the intent to engage in unlawful sexual conduct with a minor after traveling to meet them. If the State cannot establish this beyond a reasonable doubt or communications show an alternative purpose for the meeting, a conviction cannot be legally supported.

Another key defense in traveling to meet a minor case involving a law enforcement sting is entrapment. Entrapment occurs when a government agent (such as law enforcement) induces a non-predisposed defendant to act criminally when this would not have otherwise occurred. 

There are two types of entrapment: objective and subjective. Objective entrapment involves law enforcement conduct that is so egregious, it fundamentally 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). 

Notably, the fact that someone was ensnared in a police sting 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 traveling to meet a minor cases, a subjective entrapment defense is used. This is also called “statutory entrapment” as 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 act 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 to do so, this defeats a traveling charge.

Another defense that may be used is that no travel (or attempt to travel) actually occurred. If the State charges someone with traveling despite a lack of evidence that they made an attempt to actually meet the minor for sexual activity, this defeats a traveling to meet a minor charge (though a solicitation charge under 847.0135(3) may still be supported).

An additional defense is insufficient evidence of sexual communications. The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant used online or electronic communications to lure, seduce, solicit or entice the minor to sexual activity. If there is no clear record of this, the communications cannot be authenticated, or the preserved communications were vague and not sexually suggestive – this can all support an insufficient evidence defense. 

Under certain circumstances (when someone is charged as a result of a police sting), a lack of belief defense can be advanced. This is because the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant actually believed they were traveling to engage in unlawful sexual contact with a minor.

If someone clearly expressed reservations about this belief (such as statements that they believe there is a substantial chance they are being duped by a police officer, etc.), this can support a lack of belief defense. Though the State may argue that traveling proves belief that the defendant was traveling to meet a minor, the defendant may have traveled simply hoping – not believing – they were meeting a real person.

In rare cases involving traveling to meet a minor, a “fantasy defense” may be used. This defense involves an argument that the defendant was simply “joking” or “role-playing” while believing they were communicating with (and traveling to meet) an adult. However, this defense is rarely successful especially if traveling occurs.

While there are many defenses to a traveling to meet a minor charge, there are also various “non-defenses” to this allegation that are held to be legally invalid in Florida. These include:

• “The minor was actually a cop”: Florida law permits police stings and criminalizes traveling to meet someone believed to be a minor for sex. However, this fact can open the door for other defenses such as entrapment.
• “The meeting never happened”: The act of traveling to meet the minor after unlawful solicitation is itself a crime, regardless of if an eventual rendezvous occurs.
• “The minor lied about their age”: In Florida, mistake of age is not a defense. Even if the minor claimed to be 18 or older, the defendant can still be found guilty.
• “I didn’t touch them”: Physical contact and/or actual sexual activity are not required for someone to be found guilty 

In sum, traveling to meet a minor is a very serious felony in Florida. It is punishable by up to 15 years in prison and a $10,000 fine if someone is found guilty.

Despite the serious nature of this charge, there are various defenses to an allegation of traveling to meet a minor. These include double jeopardy (if charged with solicitation and unlawful use), entrapment, a lack of travel or attempt to travel, lack of solicitation/sexual communications, no underlying intent to commit a sexual act, lack of genuine belief of a minor (in cases involving law enforcement), and more. 

If someone is arrested and formally charged in Florida with traveling to meet a minor and seeks to raise an entrapment defense, it is critical to find experienced and trusted legal representation as soon as possible. This decision could make the difference in whether or not someone faces a lengthy prison term and hefty fines.

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