Entrapment Defense in Florida Online Solicitation Cases: How It Works and When It Applies

August 28, 2025 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense Social Share

In Florida, someone may be charged with online solicitation of a minor (Fla. Stat. 847.0135(3)) after sending an allegedly solicitous digital communication to what turns out to be an undercover officer. In such a case, a viable defense may be to argue entrapment – that the defendant was not predisposed to commit the act and was induced to do so by the police.

Depending on the facts of a given online solicitation case, the defense of entrapment may be available to someone who is charged. But how does the entrapment defense truly work in an online solicitation case, and when does it potentially apply? This blog will answer those key questions.

For someone to be guilty of online solicitation of a minor, the following must be established beyond a reasonable doubt:

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

Online solicitation of a minor is a third-degree felony in Florida, punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine. If someone misrepresents their age in the process of soliciting a minor online, it becomes a second-degree felony punishable by up to 15 years and a $10,000 fine.

It is commonly asked whether online solicitation requires the transmission of a message requesting a specific sex act. The answer is no. However, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the messages were sent with the purpose of soliciting, seducing, enticing or luring the minor to engage in sexual activity, even if a particular sex act was not discussed. 

Under Grohs v. State, 944 So.2d 450 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), these terms are defined as follows:

• “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. Lindemuth v. State, 247 So.3d 635 (Fla. 3d. DCA 2018)

In online solicitation cases involving law enforcement stings, online solicitation is often charged along with two other offenses:

• Traveling to meet a minor (Fla. Stat. 847.0135(4)): A second-degree felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison and a $10,000 fine
• Unlawful use of a two-way communications device (Fla. Stat. 934.215): A third-degree felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine

Despite the frequent nature of these three offenses being charged together, Florida courts have held that doing so violates a defendant’s protection against double jeopardy if the charges arise from the same course of conduct. The solicitation and unlawful use charges are subsumed by the traveling charge under such circumstances. State v. Shelley, 176 So.3d 914 (Fla. 2015)

If someone is facing online solicitation of a minor charges after being arrested as part of a government sting operation, their first question is often whether entrapment can be successfully argued. The answer to this is: yes, entrapment can be a defense. But its effectiveness depends on the facts of any given case.

There are two types of entrapment under Florida law: objective and subjective. Objective entrapment occurs when law enforcement conduct in targeting a defendant is so egregious that to prosecute the defendant for the charged crimes would be to fundamentally violate their due process rights. Dippolito v. State, 275 So.3d 653 (Fla 4th DCA 2019). 

Objective entrapment is generally hard to prove in solicitation cases, as law enforcement stings are legal. However, some examples of when objective entrapment may be used to defeat a charge of online solicitation include:

• The “minor” (undercover officer) threatens to injure or kill the defendant if they do not send a sexual communication that qualifies as a solicitation
• The “minor” (undercover officer) promises to supply the defendant with illegal material, such as child pornography, if they send a solicitous communication
• The “minor” (undercover officer) offers to pay a defendant they know to be financially struggling a substantial sum of cash to “talk dirty” to them
• The “minor” (undercover officer) offers drugs to a defendant known to be struggling with addiction if they engage in sexual communications with them

In these cases, police conduct goes beyond simply giving the defendant the opportunity to commit an offense via a sting operation. It even goes beyond “nudging” someone to commit the crime. If law enforcement uses the sort of egregiously coercive tactics described above, an objective entrapment defense may be viable.

The second entrapment defense, subjective entrapment, is a more common and generally more viable defense in online solicitation cases involving undercover officers. Codified under Fla. Stat. 777.201, courts use a two-step test to determine whether the defendant was entrapped. Munoz v. State, 629 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 1993)

The first prong of this test is determining whether the defendant was induced by a government agent (such as a police officer) to act criminally (send the solicitation). Though this may seem very easily satisfied, inducement is not as simple as police being the ones chatting online with the defendant. 

As police stings are legal in Florida, undercover law enforcement must act in a manner that goes beyond simply providing someone the “opportunity” to commit the charged crime. Inducement involves the use of tactics that may cause even a non-predisposed person (someone who was not “ready and willing, without persuasion, to commit the charged offense”) to ultimately send a solicitous communication. Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540, 548 (1992).

Florida’s courts have recognized all of the following tactics as “inducement” for purposes of establishing subjective entrapment under Fla. Stat. 777.201 (State v. Laing, 182 So.3d 812 (Fla 4th DCA 2016)):

• Coaxing and cajoling (e.g. “Come on, just tell me you want to have sex already”)
• Promises of friendship, affection or monetary reward (“I’ll be your best friend/give you money if…”)
• Threats (also can support objective entrapment) 
• Persuasion (“I know you’re shy, but it’s okay, you can say it…”)
• Harassment and intimidation
• Personal attacks (e.g. questioning a defendant’s manhood)

Inducement must be established by a preponderance of the evidence (majority), and the burden of proof is on the defendant to do so. Vazquez v. State, 700 So. 2d 5, 8 (Fla. 1997). If this is done successfully, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant was predisposed to solicit the minor. Otherwise, the charge is dismissed. 

Predisposition is defined as a readiness and willingness to commit a crime even in the absence of law enforcement inducement.

In determining predisposition (or lack thereof), courts consider (Jones v. State, 114 So.3d 1123 (Fla 1st DCA 2013)):

• Evidence of a defendant’s prior criminal activities (especially crimes against a minor if convicted)
• The defendant’s reputation for such activities (e.g. among members of the community)
• Any reasonable suspicion that had previously been developed of the defendant’s involvement in such activities (e.g. targeting minors for sex/solicitation)
• Ready acquiescence to commit the crime

Given the above, whether a subjective entrapment claim succeeds is heavily dependent on the facts of a case. If police used inducement tactics that put even a non-predisposed defendant at risk of committing the crime, and the defendant was not clearly predisposed to commit the offense of online solicitation, a subjective entrapment defense is more likely to succeed.

But notably, even if police use inducement tactics, a subjective entrapment claim will fail if the defendant is found to have been predisposed (e.g. “readily acquiesced” to soliciting the purported minor without persuasion and/or has a criminal record of sex crimes involving minors).

If police conduct was especially egregious, however, predisposition becomes irrelevant. Law enforcement taking actions such as threatening to harm or kill a defendant, or offering to send them illegal material in exchange for a solicitous communication, can rise to the level of objective entrapment. This warrants a dismissal even if the defendant was predisposed.

Given the legality of police stings in Florida, an objective entrapment claim is rarely successful unless the law enforcement conduct in eliciting a solicitation was so egregious that to prosecute the defendant would inherently violate their due process rights. Dippolito v. State, 275 So.3d 653 (Fla 4th DCA 2019). 

Critically, even if an entrapment claim does not succeed in a case, various other defenses to a charge of online solicitation of a minor. These include:

• Lack of intent to solicit (message was vague/not sexual)
• Insufficient evidence/mistaken identity
• Someone else was using the device
• Procedural defenses (motions to suppress a defendant’s post-Miranda statements or other evidence obtained unlawfully)

In sum, there are two types of entrapment defenses that can be raised if police were involved in eliciting an online solicitation: objective and subjective entrapment. Objective entrapment focuses on especially egregious law enforcement conduct and is harder to prove. However, in cases where police threaten someone or offer them illegal material, this may succeed.

Subjective entrapment is a more widely-applicable entrapment defense, and may be successful even without truly egregious police action, so long as this rose to the level of “inducement” and the State cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was predisposed to commit the offense. 

It is important to note that the entrapment defense goes “out the window” if the victim was an actual minor, who was uninvolved with law enforcement. This is because entrapment requires the involvement of a government agent in the crime. If this does not occur, entrapment is no longer applicable.

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