FL Court Dismisses Solicitation Charges on Entrapment Grounds: “Outrageous” Police Conduct

February 9, 2026 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense, Sex Crimes Social Share

Judge John F. Lakin of Manatee County dismissed a defendant’s solicitation of a minor charge, finding he was impermissibly entrapped by law enforcement despite having no predisposition to commit the offense.

In Florida, solicitation of a minor and traveling to meet a minor charges may be brought after a defendant is ensnared in a law enforcement sting. Solicitation of a minor is a third-degree felony, punishable by up to 5 years in prison – while traveling to meet a minor is a second-degree felony, punishable by up to 15 years in prison.

Someone may be charged with these offenses following an undercover police operation in which officers pretended to be minors online and engaged in sexual communications with a defendant.

For someone to be guilty of solicitation of a minor (Fla. Stat. 847.0135(3)), the State must prove all of the following 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 (under 18) or person believed to be a minor (e.g. undercover law enforcement) to engage in sexual activity (or attempted to do so)

For someone to be guilty of traveling to meet a minor for unlawful sexual activity, the State must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt (Fla. Stat. 847.0135(4)):

• 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 (under 18) or person believed to be a minor to engage in sexual activity (or attempted to do so)
• After that solicitation, the defendant then traveled or attempted to travel within Florida to meet the minor (or person believed to be a minor) to engage in unlawful sexual activity

If someone is accused of soliciting/traveling to meet someone believed to be a minor (e.g. this turned out to be law enforcement), a potential defense is entrapment. The likelihood of such a defense’s success (or failure) is heavily dependent upon the facts of a case.

There are two types of entrapment in Florida – objective entrapment and subjective entrapment. The difference between this is critical to understand, as it will allow someone to make a more informed decision about which of these defenses to pursue (and potentially both) if their charges stem from what they view to be law enforcement misconduct.

Objective entrapment occurs when police engage in such egregious activity (often illegal), that prosecuting a defendant for the crime that results from it violates that defendant’s due process rights – regardless of if they are guilty or not of the offense. 

Objective entrapment is evaluated by the judge, as a matter of law, before trial (e.g. raised in a pretrial motion to dismiss). Examples of objective entrapment have historically included:

• Law enforcement manufactures drugs at the police station to sell to people on the street while undercover, only to arrest people when they try to buy them (State v. Williams, 623 So.2d 462, 466 (Fla. 1993))
• A police task force sends child pornography through the mail to arrest someone for possessing it (Farley v. State, 848 So.2d 393, 397-98 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003))
• A law enforcement officer or informant enters a sexual relationship with the defendant to get them to act criminally (Madera v. State, 943 So.2d 960 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006))

It is important to note that a police sting is not itself objective entrapment, as law enforcement can legally engage in undercover activities (so long as they do not act illegally/improperly).  Dippolito v. State, 275 So.3d 653 (Fla 4th DCA 2019)

Subjective (or statutory) entrapment occurs when police impermissibly induce a non-predisposed defendant to commit a crime. For subjective entrapment to be established, a defendant must first prove by a preponderance (majority) of the evidence that law enforcement relied upon prohibited tactics to “bait them” to act criminally (Fla. Stat. 777.201).

Under Munoz v. State, 629 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 1993) and its progeny, examples of inducement may include:

• Coaxing, persuasion, cajoling and trickery
• Promises of friendship, monetary gain or affection
• Badgering or coercion 

If the defendant proves inducement by a preponderance of the evidence, the State is required to adduce evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was predisposed to commit the underlying offense(s) (e.g. “ready and willing, without persuasion”). Munoz v. State, 629 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 1993)

If the State fails to do so, the jury must find the defendant not guilty on entrapment grounds (if the defense is raised at trial). If subjective entrapment is raised in a pretrial motion, the judge must dismiss the underlying charges if they believe no reasonable jury could conclude that the defendant was not entrapped. For more, click here.

Note: To learn more about inducement for entrapment purposes in Florida, click here. For more on predisposition, click here.

In one major Florida case on this issue, that is exactly what happened. In Florida’s 12th Judicial Circuit (Manatee County), a trial judge dismissed solicitation and traveling to meet a “minor” charges against Jorge Camacho – finding he was subjectively entrapped by local police.

Let’s take a look at that case and what it means for defendants asserting an entrapment defense to criminal charges in Florida.

KEY CASE: State v. Camacho, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 92b (Fla. 12th Cir. 2014)

In Camacho, an undercover officer posed as a 19-year-old girl (“Becca”) on an online dating site, where she “matched” with Camacho. The two began chatting in a non-sexual fashion (e.g. asking basic questions about each other), and this continued for a few days.

On day three, “Becca” disclosed to Camacho that she was “actually” 14 years old. The pair had discussed meeting up immediately before this, but there had been no talk of sexual activity that would occur in the event that meeting occurred.

Camacho indicated he still wanted to see “Becca,” so long as her mother was “cool” with it. He said that he didn’t want to get in “trouble.” A few minutes later, “Becca” (undercover officer) emailed Camacho six unsolicited images of a “girl” in various stages of undress inside a hotel room. 

Though these were actually images of an adult woman who worked for the Seminole County Sheriff’s Office, Camacho believed them to be “Becca.” Camacho advised her that she “looked good, older than 14 too.” Following this, “Becca” tacitly introduced the idea of sex into the chat by advising that she was “young and innocent.”

From there, “Becca” started to press Camacho on what he intended to do when the two of them met. Camacho advised he wanted to “watch a movie, play some video games,” and “talk.” The undercover officer (“Becca”) then implicitly pushed sex again, telling Camacho: “I am open for anything, if we like each other…”

Camacho replied that he did not want to commit to having sex (“idk babe we will see and don’t worry I’m not a pervert”). Camacho suggested the two of them just “have some fun.” “Becca” then began to more openly press Camacho to discuss sex, asking him to “please tell” what he wanted to do.

“Becca” sent another round of images in an attempt to get Camacho to more explicitly engage in sexual talk – then complimented his physical appearance. Camacho still did not suggest or agree to any sexual activity.

Over the next few days, “Becca” continued pressing Camacho to arrange a meeting. Camacho had still not indicated he wished to have sex with “Becca” – however, “Becca” made a series of comments attempting to get Camacho to say this. 

Eventually, Camacho began to discuss details of potential sex with “Becca,” before backing off when she sent images of a different woman than the one she originally featured in her email to Camacho. 

Camacho indicated he was “not sure” if he should trust “Becca,” but his doubts were assuaged when “Becca” expressed that she was “trying to prove herself since day one.” Eventually, the pair arranged a meeting – leading to Camacho’s arrest for traveling to meet a minor and online solicitation of a minor.

Camacho moved to dismiss the charges in his case as a matter of law, arguing that he had been entrapped both objectively (due process entrapment) and subjectively. The trial judge found Camacho had been subjectively entrapped and dismissed all charges in a scathing order that harshly criticized the police’s conduct.

Finding that law enforcement had clearly induced Camacho to commit the underlying offenses, Judge John F. Lakin wrote:

“In the present case, the Court finds that from the onset law enforcement induced Defendant, and this inducement continued through repeated coercion, the development of a friendship, and excessive pressure by law enforcement acting as Becca. The first example of coercive tactics employed was by law enforcement’s posting a profile on www.datehookup.com, which is a website specifically for adult sexual relationships. While, this alone does not meet the legal definition of inducement, it meets the first prong of the test in which the government created the opportunity. 

“Next, in meeting the second prong, the Court finds the following acts to be the “something else” required — the excessive pressure by the government in taking advantage of Defendant’s non-criminal motive.First, the Court is greatly concerned with law enforcement’s approach of sending pictures of the fictitious Becca partially undressed and in a hotel room, which plants an idea of sex in the mind of an otherwise innocent person. The Court finds the action by law enforcement in this case egregious, odious, and superfluous, which may well meet due process entrapment. 

“However, the tactics did not stop there. In fact, law enforcement repeatedly tested Defendant by luring him into discussing sex, then feigning anger when plans fell through or Defendant hesitated in meeting Becca. Over the span of twelve days, law enforcement worked on developing a relationship with Defendant and planted ideas of trust. Also, the officers were oftentimes the initiator of communications and frequently steered the conversation towards a sex. 

Concluding that Camacho was not predisposed to act unlawfully and that the issue did not have to be sent to a jury, Judge Lakin wrote:

“Defendant in this case was targeted arbitrarily, without any evidence that he was already engaged in criminal activity. Thereafter, the government made a concerted effort to lure him into committing a crime. In the present case, Defendant has demonstrated that he was not under investigation by law enforcement prior to committing this crime. Moreover, Defendant has no criminal history, let alone criminal history related to the instant offense. … Therefore, the Court finds that Defendant here has satisfied his burden of proving that he was not predisposed to commit the offenses at issue.”

Holding that no reasonable jury could find Camacho was not entrapped, Judge Lakin dismissed the charges as a matter of law:

“Finally, “[t]he third question under the subjective test is whether the entrapment evaluation should be submitted to a jury.” Id. at 100. Fla. Stat. § 777.201 provides that the issue of entrapment shall be submitted to the trier of fact; “[h]owever, when the factual issues . . . are not in dispute, ‘then the trial judge has the authority to rule on the issue of predisposition as a matter of law.” State v. Ramos, 632 So. 2d 1078, 1079 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (citing Munoz, 629 So. 2d at 100). In the present case, the issues of fact are not in dispute. Therefore, upon diligent consideration, the Court finds that Defendant was entrapped as a matter of law. Further, given the Court’s scrutiny of this case and the conduct of law enforcement, the Court finds it imperative for all law enforcement officials in this matter to receive copies of this Court’s order and will direct service accordingly.”

In sum, State v. Camacho, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 92b (Fla. 12th Cir. 2014) is a significant development in Florida’s corpus of case law on the issue of entrapment in traveling to meet a minor and solicitation of a minor cases. Judge John Lakin of the 12th Circuit held that:

• Law enforcement created an adult-aged profile on a dating site and deliberately waited until they befriended Camacho to reveal the “true age” of the fictional minor behind the profile (“Becca”)
• Law enforcement sent sexually suggestive images to Camacho and badgered him for days in an attempt to get him to “admit” he wanted to have sex when he met the “minor”
• This was clear inducement, and there was no evidence that Camacho was predisposed to target minors for sex
• Because Camacho showed inducement and the State could not establish predisposition to act criminally on Camacho’s part, no reasonable jury could find he was not entrapped – requiring dismissal of the charges as a matter of law

Florida’s criminal defense community should take note of State v. Camacho, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 92b (Fla. 12th Cir. 2014), as Judge Lakin’s order provides us a powerful reminder that outrageous police conduct warrants the dismissal of the resulting charges as a matter of law on entrapment grounds before trial.

If someone is arrested and formally charged in Florida in a case and has a potential 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 criminal 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