Is Solicitation of a Minor That Was Actually An Undercover Officer a Crime in Florida?

May 30, 2025 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense, Sex Crimes Social Share

If someone is arrested and charged with online solicitation of a minor in Florida under Fla. Stat. Section 847.0135(3), this is considered a very serious felony. It is punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine. 

But what if the alleged child victim is not a child at all – and the person solicited for sex was actually an undercover officer using a fictional identity? This blog will discuss whether online solicitation of a minor is a crime if the alleged victim was not a minor at all – and was actually an undercover officer using a fake online identity.

Sometimes, individuals will be arrested and charged with online solicitation of a minor after being ensnared in a law enforcement sting operation. This will often also involve the person being charged traveling to meet the minor for the alleged purpose of sexual activity. However, traveling is not a requirement before officers can make an arrest – as online solicitation is itself a crime.

If someone is arrested for online solicitation and the alleged victim was an undercover officer who created a fictional online profile, this cannot be used as a complete defense to a solicitation charge. This is because under Florida’s laws governing solicitation and traveling to meet a minor, law enforcement departments can engage in operations targeting this activity, provided that they do not violate the law or illegally entrap a defendant.

Fla. Stat. Section 847.0135(3) criminalizes solicitation of a minor for the purpose of sexual activity. For someone to be found guilty, the State must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 

• The defendant knowingly used a computer online service, Internet service, local bulletin board service, device capable of electronic data storage or transmission to contact the victim
• The victim was a child or a person the defendant believed to be a child
• During that contact, the defendant seduced, solicited, lured, or enticed a minor, or attempted to do so, to commit any illegal sexual act

Online solicitation of a minor is a third-degree felony. This is punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine. If the defendant misrepresents their age during the solicitation, the charge may be enhanced to a second-degree felony, punishable by up to 15 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

Some of the most common defenses to online solicitation charges may include:

• Insufficient evidence (beyond the allegation)
• The alleged message did not constitute a sexual solicitation
• Mistaken identity: The defendant did not write the alleged message(s)
• Lack of proof that the alleged minor was an actual minor (if the alleged victim’s age was not independently verified by law enforcement)

But despite the fact that a law enforcement officer using an online profile is not a complete defense to an online solicitation charge, it can serve as a partial defense. In addition to the typical defenses for online solicitation, the fact that an officer was the alleged victim opens the door for two additional defenses:

• The defendant did not believe that the person they were corresponding with, and allegedly solicited, was an actual child
• Entrapment either via official misconduct or under Fla. Stat. Section 777.201

If a defendant solicits an actual minor for sex online, the same “strict liability” standard applies to the solicitation charge as charges for other sexual offenses, such as statutory rape. Pamblanco v. State, 111 So.3d 249 (Fla 5th DCA 2013) Florida courts do not recognize any of the following as defenses to a solicitation charge if an actual minor was solicited:

• Mistake of age (defendant’s alleged belief they were soliciting an adult)
• Misrepresentation of age by the minor (the minor allegedly claiming they were an adult) 
• Sexual history of the minor

But if the alleged victim was actually a police officer (a legal adult) using a fictional profile, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt at trial that the defendant actually believed they were communicating with a minor when they made the alleged solicitation. If the alleged minor was an undercover officer and there are signs the defendant believed they were not messaging with an actual minor, such as:

• Accusing the “minor” of being a police officer during the alleged communications
• Refusing to travel to meet the minor because the defendant believed police or some other legal adult was actually corresponding with them

This could be helpful for someone’s defense. Depending on the facts of a given case, a judge may consider a pretrial motion to dismiss based on such an argument if one is filed based on a lack of actual belief. If such a motion is denied by the judge and the case proceeds to trial, the question of the defendant’s belief will be one for the jury.

A second defense that can be used if the alleged child victim was actually an undercover officer is entrapment. There are two types of entrapment under Florida law: objective entrapment and subjective entrapment.

Objective Entrapment

Objective entrapment occurs when “supplies all of the instrumentalities of a crime, controls all of its aspects, and teaches the intended target how to commit the crime for the purpose of arresting him.” State v. Finno, 643 So. 2d 1166 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). Objective entrapment is less commonly argued in solicitation cases due to the common, lawful use of sting operations, but can be raised if law enforcement conduct is sufficiently egregious. State v. Hunter, 586 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)

Subjective Entrapment

More frequently, a defense of subjective entrapment can be argued if a law enforcement sting produced someone’s arrest for online solicitation. Under Fla. Stat. Section 777.201 and Munoz v. State, if a subjective entrapment claim is raised:

• The defendant must first prove by a preponderance (51% or more) of the evidence that they were induced to make the solicitation by the law enforcement officer
• If this is established, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime

Notably, inducement does not simply mean that “but for” the law enforcement officer’s conduct, the alleged crime would not have occurred. For inducement to be proven, the police conduct must go beyond merely providing an opportunity for the defendant to act. Some examples of law enforcement inducement include:

• Coaxing, cajoling, or otherwise manipulating the defendant to solicit the minor
• Flattery, emotional manipulation, or appeals to sympathy
• Deliberately overcoming reluctance or hesitation by the defendant
• Promises of benefits such as money or affection

Any such activity by police, if proven by a preponderance (majority) of the evidence, will satisfy the inducement prong of the subjective entrapment test under Fla. Stat. Section 777.201. Gennette v. State, 124 So.3d 273 (Fla 1st DCA 2013).

If inducement is successfully argued by the defense, the court (if raised before trial) or a jury (if raised at trial) must next consider the State’s evidence for predisposition. This is defined as “a state of mind which inclines a person to commit a crime, given the opportunity, without persuasion.” Munoz v. State, 629 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 1993). 

If the State proves law enforcement simply “provided the opportunity” to a defendant to commit the offense of online solicitation beyond a reasonable doubt, this defeats an entrapment claim. To maximize the likelihood of an entrapment argument succeeding, it is important to find an experienced and aggressive attorney who can examine a solicitation case and potentially develop an argument based on the facts.

In sum, solicitation of a minor that was actually an undercover law enforcement officer is illegal in Florida. This is because Florida law (Fla. Stat. Section 847.0135) allows law enforcement to engage in sting operations and apprehend individuals who have allegedly solicited someone online that they believed to be a minor – even if it was actually a police officer.

However, the fact that a law enforcement officer (a legal adult) was allegedly solicited opens the door to other defenses that may not have otherwise been available to someone under Florida law. These include that the defendant did not believe they were corresponding with an actual minor, and a potential argument of law enforcement entrapment under Fla. Stat. Section 777.201.

If someone is arrested and formally charged in Florida with online solicitation of a minor, 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