FL Supreme Court Resolves Interdistrict Entrapment Conflict in WIN For Defendants

March 5, 2026 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense Social Share

Case Summary

Florida’s Supreme Court reversed a ruling from Florida’s 2nd District Court of Appeal that found a defendant was not unlawfully entrapped – and affirmed a 1st DCA decision that found entrapment under nearly identical circumstances.

• CASE: Teague v. State, 472 So.2d 461 (Fla. 1985)
• Charge(s): Grand Theft
• Outcome: Conviction reversed due to entrapment of the defendant by law enforcement.

In Florida, entrapment is a total defense to criminal charges. If someone was entrapped by law enforcement, they are not guilty as a matter of law of the charges stemming from the misconduct that produced them. For more on this, click here.

There are two types of entrapment in Florida – objective entrapment and subjective entrapment. The distinction between these is critical to understand, as strategic use of entrapment as a defense will be significantly more effective than simply arguing both – even when the facts of the case do not support it.

Objective entrapment occurs when law enforcement acts so egregiously in “creating” a crime, that the defendant’s due process rights under the Florida and U.S. Constitution are automatically violated by prosecuting them – even if they are guilty. Objective entrapment is argued before trial, as a matter of law (e.g. the judge rules on a motion to dismiss), not to the jury.

Though Florida courts are generally reluctant to dismiss cases on objective entrapment grounds (Dippolito v. State, 275 So.3d 653 (Fla 4th DCA 2019)), 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 just because officers go “undercover” (e.g. run a sting operation), this does not mean a defendant has been entSrapped. Law enforcement can conduct covert operations and permissibly use confidential informants under Florida law – so long as they don’t “cross the line” into entrapment.

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 induce 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 or cajoling the defendant to commit the underlying offense (e.g. “Come on, please do it…”)
• Harassment, coercion, or impugning the character or “manhood” of the defendant (e.g. “You’re pathetic if you don’t do it…”)
• Promises of friendship or monetary reward (e.g. “I’ll give you money if you do it…”)

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)

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

In the 2020s, entrapment is most frequently argued in cases involving drug sales, and undercover operations where police officers pose as minors and engage with users of dating applications and other platforms – often resulting in solicitation and traveling to meet a minor charges. For more, click here.

But decades ago, law enforcement officers in Florida frequently entrapped defendants for much “simpler” crimes. One common scheme, especially in the early 1980s, was an officer posing as a homeless man sleeping on the sidewalk with a wad of cash sticking out of his pocket. If someone attempted to take the cash, they would be arrested for theft.

The reason why this scheme no longer occurs is because the Florida Supreme Court put an end to it in 1985. The Florida Supreme Court elected to hear a Tampa defendant’s challenge of a grand theft charge after they swiped cash from what they believed to be a homeless man’s pocket. 

The defendant argued they were entrapped – as there was no evidence they were predisposed to commit the offense and they simply “succumbed to temptation” created by law enforcement. The Florida Supreme Court agreed and tossed out the defendant’s grand theft charge, finding them not guilty as a matter of law on entrapment grounds.

Let’s look at that Florida Supreme Court case – Teague v. State, 472 So.2d 461 (Fla. 1985) – and discuss what it means for defendants arguing they were objectively and/or subjectively entrapped in Florida today.

KEY CASE: Teague v. State, 472 So.2d 461 (Fla. 1985)

In Teague, the defendant (Teague) was arrested and charged with grand theft after swiping cash from what he believed to be a sleeping homeless man’s pocket in Tampa. This ended up being an undercover police officer – and Teague was immediately handcuffed.

Teague moved to dismiss the charges on entrapment grounds before trial, but this was denied by the trial judge. Following the denial, Teague entered a plea of no contest (nolo contendere) and appealed to Florida’s 2nd District Court of Appeal – which heard Teague’s case before it got to the Florida Supreme Court.

Before the 2nd DCA, Teague reiterated his argument that he was entrapped. Teague claimed that he was impermissibly induced to commit the charged offense and was not predisposed to do so. But the 2nd DCA disagreed, writing:

“In Teague, we have before us almost a carbon copy of State v. Cruz, 426 So.2d 1308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) and Goldstein v. State, 435 So.2d 352 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). The scenario is the same: a police officer-decoy pretending to be a wino or some other downtrodden, ill person was on the streets of Tampa with money protruding from his pocket. Teague removed the money and was immediately arrested by detectives posted nearby. He was charged with grand theft in the second degree in violation of section 812.014(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1981). 

“After the trial judge denied his motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4), Teague entered a nolo contendere but reserved the right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss. The court below accepted the plea, withheld adjudication of guilt, and placed Teague on probation for a period of three years. Upon review of the record, we find no reversible error and affirm the trial court’s order relating to the motion to dismiss and probation, see Goldstein and Cruz; contra, State v. Casper, 417 So.2d 263 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) …”

The 2nd DCA signaled its direct conflict with State v. Casper, 417 So.2d 263 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). There, Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal (Tallahassee and North FL’s highest court) ruled that Casper was impermissibly entrapped by law enforcement officers who engaged in exactly the same conduct.

Noting this conflict, Florida’s Supreme Court accepted Teague’s appeal. The Florida Supreme Court approved of Casper and reversed the 2nd DCA’s ruling in Teague’s case – finding that the “tactics” utilized by law enforcement constituted entrapment under state law. The Court wrote:

“We have for review a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Second District, Teague v. State, 449 So.2d 850 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), which expressly and directly conflicts with State v. Casper, 417 So.2d 263 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 418 So.2d 1280 (Fla.1982). We have jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution. Our decision is controlled by Cruz v. State, 465 So.2d 516 (Fla.1985), which arose from essentially identical circumstances as the present case. In Cruz, we held that the issue of entrapment must be resolved by a threshhold inquiry into the methods employed by law enforcement officials, a determination for the trial court, followed by the jury’s determination of the accused’s predisposition to commit the particular offense. We find here, as in Cruz, that the police activity constituted entrapment as a matter of law. We quash the decision of the district court and remand with directions that the circuit court enter an order granting petitioner’s motion to dismiss.”

In essence, the Florida Supreme Court held that the officers had “objectively entrapped” Teague (and Casper), so their theft conviction(s) could not stand. With this ruling, the Court effectively “killed” the “money sticking out of a homeless man’s pocket” scheme occasionally utilized by law enforcement agencies in the state to arrest defendants for theft.

In sum, Teague v. State, 472 So.2d 461 (Fla. 1985) marks a significant development in Florida’s corpus of case law surrounding objective and subjective entrapment. The Florida Supreme Court ruled that:

• Teague was entrapped as a matter of law by a police officer pretending to be a sleeping homeless man with cash sticking out of his pocket
• This required the grand theft charge against him to be dismissed 
• The 1st DCA (Tallahassee and North FL’s highest court) was correct when it ruled these tactics to be entrapment in State v. Casper, 417 So.2d 263 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) – and the 2nd DCA erred by conflicting with the 1st DCA on this issue

Florida’s criminal defense community should take note of Teague v. State, 472 So.2d 461 (Fla. 1985), as it makes clear there are boundaries law enforcement must operate within when sting operations are relied upon to arrest defendants.

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