Florida Entrapment Law Clarified: Top Court Reinstates Charges in Drug Case

February 9, 2026 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense, Drug Charges Social Share

Florida’s 4th District Court of Appeal reversed a trial judge who dismissed a case against a defendant on entrapment grounds – allowing the prosecution to go forward. Here’s why.

In Florida, entrapment is a total defense to allegedly criminal activity. Entrapment occurs when the government induces someone to commit an offense in a manner that does not comply with state law or the Florida and U.S. Constitutions (e.g. violates due process), requiring dismissal of the resulting charge(s).

There are two types of entrapment in Florida – objective entrapment and subjective entrapment. The distinction between these is critical to understand, as knowing the ins and outs of entrapment law in Florida allows defendants and their attorneys to make the best strategic decisions possible when pursuing an entrapment defense.

Objective entrapment occurs when law enforcement misconduct is so egregious (or illegal) that prosecuting the defendant would violate their due process rights under the Florida and U.S. Constitutions. Unlike subjective entrapment, an objective entrapment analysis does not consider the predisposition (or lack thereof) of the defendant to act unlawfully.

Real-life examples of police misconduct that has risen to the level of objective entrapment in Florida include:

• 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))

Objective entrapment is generally considered “harder” to prove than subjective entrapment, as it requires law enforcement to go far beyond simply running an undercover operation. The alleged misconduct must be so abhorrent, it leaves the court no other choice but to dismiss the charge even if the defendant is technically guilty. Dippolito v. State, 275 So.3d 653 (Fla 4th DCA 2019)

Subjective entrapment, codified in Florida law by Munoz v. State, 629 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 1993) and Fla. Stat. 777.201. occurs when law enforcement induces a nonpredisposed defendant to commit a crime. This is generally considered the more “straightforward” of the entrapment defenses, as it does not require extremely unethical police misconduct for a dismissal of the charges to occur.

Important: Subjective entrapment can be raised in the form of a pretrial motion to dismiss on entrapment grounds, at trial itself, or both. However, objective entrapment is decided as a matter of law – and thus, can only be raised before the judge (e.g. pretrial), not before the jury at trial.

There are two “prongs” of a subjective entrapment analysis (also called statutory entrapment) in Florida – inducement and predisposition. The first of these, inducement, must be proven by the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence.

Inducement occurs when law enforcement relies upon tactics while performing a sting operation (or acting through a confidential informant) which risk that a person will act criminally even if they were not “ready and willing, without persuasion” to do so before the police conduct.

Examples of impermissible inducement tactics for subjective entrapment purposes in Florida may include (Gennette v. State, 124 So.3d 273 (Fla 1st DCA 2013)):

• Coaxing, cajoling, or harassment (e.g. “You better do this, or else…”)
• Promises of friendship with the defendant (e.g. “I’ll be your best friend if…”
• Promises of monetary reward (e.g. “I’ll give you $1,000 if…”)

If the defendant establishes impermissible inducement occurred by a preponderance (majority) of the evidence, the burden then shifts to the State to establish the defendant’s predisposition to act unlawfully beyond a reasonable doubt. 

To show predisposition, the State must prove that the defendant was “ready and willing, without persuasion” to commit the crime – and pounced at the opportunity to do so that was given to him by law enforcement. Munoz v. State, 629 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 1993). 

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

If the judge has questions about whether inducement or predisposition have been proven, they must send the matter to the jury to be decided at trial (e.g. if a motion to dismiss on entrapment grounds is raised before trial). 

However, if the judge concludes no reasonable jury could find predisposition and inducement is clear, the trial judge has the authority to dismiss the underlying charges as a matter of law on subjective entrapment grounds. Soohoo v. State, 737 So.2d 1108 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)

Sometimes, a defendant will raise a motion to dismiss on entrapment grounds before trial, and this will be granted. In the event this occurs, the State may appeal the judge’s ruling to a District Court of Appeal (appellate court in Florida), arguing the trial judge erred as a matter of law by dismissing the charges, and urging the charges to be reinstated.

This is exactly what happened in a case heard by Florida’s 4th District Court of Appeal – State v. Blanco, 896 So.2d 200 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Let’s take a look at Blanco and what it means for defendants in Florida seeking to argue they were entrapped as a matter of law.

KEY CASE: State v. Blanco, 896 So.2d 200 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)

In Blanco, the defendant (Blanco) was visiting a bar when he was approached by an undercover officer. The officer was partaking in a sting operation, hoping to find drug dealers.

The officer began conversing with Blanco at the bar, indicating he liked to “party” – and clarified this was a euphemism for cocaine use. The officer asked Blanco if he would try to find a seller of cocaine nearby, and Blanco agreed to do so.

Blanco returned and said he did not find any cocaine sellers, but did find someone willing to sell the undercover officer crystal meth for $60. The officer gave the cash to Blanco, who returned to him with the drugs. Blanco was ultimately arrested.

Before trial, Blanco moved to dismiss the charges on entrapment grounds. He argued the officer induced him to act – and that there was no evidence he was predisposed to engage in illicit drug activity. 

The trial judge granted the motion, finding Blanco was objectively entrapped (e.g. Blanco’s due process rights were violated). The judge said:

“I have to kind of disagree with [the State]…. [T]his particular defendant was not a target of an investigation. He had not been previously noted as someone who dealt in drugs and that they were targeting him. This officer walks into knowingly—knowing it’s a gay bar—and, as he testified, he approached this man who was sitting alone. He was the one that began the conversation. If it had been a woman sitting there I think she would have felt the same way. This was a man who was interested in her or him. The manner of procedure here and the talk that resulted would certainly seem to me objectionable, denied this man of his due process rights. And I am going to grant the motion to dismiss.”

The State appealed the trial judge’s ruling, arguing that the undercover officer’s conduct was not so egregious that it violated Blanco’s due process rights. The 4th DCA agreed with the State and reversed the trial judge, writing:

“Unlike subjective entrapment, which focuses on the issues of inducement and the defendant’s predisposition, an objective analysis of entrapment on due process grounds focuses on the conduct of law enforcement. Munoz v. State, 629 So.2d 90 (Fla.1993).1 The type of conduct held to violate due process is that which so offends decency or a sense of justice that judicial power may not be exercised to obtain a conviction…”

“In this case, the defendant’s version of the facts differed from that of the officer. But, even assuming the facts in the light most favorable to the defendant, law enforcement’s conduct was not so outrageous that dismissal was warranted. The trial court failed to limit its consideration to the conduct of law enforcement. Rather, it focused its attention on the effect of the officer’s conduct on the defendant, the defendant’s subjective perception of the situation, and his apparent lack of predisposition to commit the offense. Respectfully, those factors are irrelevant to a ruling when it is objectively analyzed on due process grounds. Law enforcement was alerted that drugs were being sold at this bar. As it does on a daily basis, it engaged undercover officers to find the dealers at the suspected location. We conclude the officer’s conduct did not rise to that level of “outrageous” as required under the case law to support a finding of entrapment on due process grounds. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order of dismissal and remand the case for reinstatement of the charges.”

Essentially, the 4th DCA found that because law enforcement reasonably believed drugs were being sold at the bar and was attempting to find dealers, the conduct of the undercover officer was not so “outrageous” as to constitute objective (due process) entrapment.

Notably, however, one 4th DCA judge disagreed. Judge Farmer of the 4th DCA believed Blanco had been entrapped, writing:

“According to Mike, the term party referred to illegal drugs. To recap the pertinent testimony, defendant had initially testified that it was Mike who first used the word party and that he thought Mike was referring to sex. In rebuttal, Mike testified that it was defendant who first used the word party and that Mike (but not necessarily the whole world) understood it to refer to drugs. Yet, in fact, Mike admitted to having to clarify to defendant that he was referring to drugs rather than sex in using the word party. Mike’s testimony thus does not refute defendant’s testimony that Mike was using both sex and drugs to induce a crime…”

“The accused has established government inducement. As I have just shown, properly understood, the testimony is clear that it was Mike who introduced the subject of drugs, not defendant. Thus the record is uncontradicted that the conduct of the officer did in fact promote defendant into committing the crime. The unrebutted testimony of defendant was found by the trial judge to involve using sex as a lure to induce an unsuspecting man into a drug transaction promoted by the police. The dismissal on the basis of objective entrapment is therefore based on legally proper procedures and represented a decision founded on a matter of law.”

However, Judge Farmer’s dissent did not win the day. As a result, the charges against Blanco were reinstated, and he was prosecuted.

In sum, State v. Blanco, 896 So.2d 200 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) is an intriguing development in Florida’s corpus of case law surrounding entrapment. The 4th DCA held that:

• Law enforcement received information that drug sales were occurring inside the bar that Blanco was patronizing
• The undercover officer’s conversations with Blanco were not so egregious in content as to violate Blanco’s due process rights
• The trial judge erroneously granted Blanco’s motion to dismiss on objective entrapment grounds
• Because Blanco was not objectively entrapped into committing the underlying crime(s), the charges against him were reinstated

Florida’s criminal defense community should take note of State v. Blanco, 896 So.2d 200 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (including Judge Farmer’s dissent), at it provides a comprehensive breakdown of how motions to dismiss that may have succeeded on subjective entrapment grounds, may fail on objective entrapment grounds.

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