Is “To Catch A Predator” Entrapment in Florida? Not Necessarily, Says One Major Court

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

Florida’s 5th District Court of Appeal ruled that a defendant arrested for attempted lewd battery after appearing on “To Catch A Predator” was not objectively entrapped by law enforcement.

In Florida, attempted lewd or lascivious battery (Fla. Stat. 800.04(4) and Fla. Stat. 777.04) is a serious felony offense. For someone to be guilty, the State must establish all of the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

• The defendant specifically intended to engage in sexual activity with the victim involving oral, anal or vaginal penetration or union 
• The victim was (or believed to be) 12 or older, but younger than 16 years old 
• The victim was not/would not have been forced or coerced into the act (willing and voluntary participation) 
• The defendant performed an “overt act” (beyond mere preparation) in an effort to commit the crime, but failed to complete it

Attempted lewd or lascivious battery is a third-degree felony, punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine. To learn more about it, click here.

If someone faces attempted lewd battery charges stemming from a law enforcement sting, they may consider asserting an entrapment defense. There are two types of entrapment in Florida – objective entrapment and subjective entrapment.

It is important to understand the difference between this if someone wishes to effectively defend against Florida criminal charges on entrapment grounds. The first of these, objective entrapment, occurs when police misconduct is so egregious (and potentially illegal) that prosecuting someone violates their due process rights, regardless of if they are guilty of the alleged offenses.

Courts in Florida are generally reluctant to find objective entrapment – which is why it is widely considered the “harder” entrapment to prove.

However, cases in which objective entrapment has been found (leading to dismissal of the charges against a defendant/reversal of their conviction) 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))

The other type of entrapment is subjective (or statutory) entrapment. Codified by Munoz v. State, 629 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 1993) and Fla. Stat. 777.201, subjective entrapment occurs when police (or a confidential informant working with them) impermissibly induce a non-predisposed defendant to commit one or more crimes.

Inducement for subjective entrapment purposes occurs when law enforcement uses tactics which risk that a crime will be committed even by someone who is not “ready and willing, without persuasion” to act unlawfully. Examples may include promises of friendship, monetary reward, or harassment. For more on inducement, click here.

A person is considered predisposed to commit the underlying offense(s) if the State can establish they were simply awaiting the opportunity to act illegally – independent of any law enforcement inducement. To learn more about predisposition, click here.

Someone may face attempted lewd battery charges after engaging in sexual communications with a minor online (or person believed to be a minor), then traveling to meet them for sexual activity. The permissibility of this charge under such circumstances has been recognized by at least one major Florida court. Byun v. State, 294 So. 3d 418 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)

However, when does police conduct in facilitating a defendant’s sexual communications with a person believed to be a minor (e.g. an undercover officer/informant) cross the line into objective entrapment? This question has been debated for years in Florida’s courts.

One of the most significant cases on this issue stems from a sting operation created as part of a hit show that previously aired on NBC – “To Catch A Predator.” During that sting, a Florida man was arrested and charged with attempted lewd or lascivious battery and various computer crimes (e.g. child pornography).

Appealing his convictions, the defendant in that case argued he was “objectively entrapped” by Florida police and the creators of the “To Catch A Predator” sting operation who contracted with law enforcement. However, Florida’s 5th District Court of Appeal (Northeast Florida) disagreed.

Let’s take a look at that case – Bist v. State, 35 So.3d 936 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) – and what it means for defendants in Florida charged with solicitation of a minor, traveling to meet a minor and attempted lewd battery who seek to raise an objective entrapment defense.

KEY CASE: Bist v. State, 35 So.3d 936 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)

In Bist, the defendant (Bist) was accused of attempted lewd or lascivious battery, as well as possession of child pornography. 

At trial, it was revealed that the Flagler Beach Police Department (FBPD) sought out the services of an online group, Perverted Justice (PJ). PJ was launched with the intent of sending volunteers into online “chatrooms,” posing as minors with the intent of “exposing pedophiles.”

With the consent of FBPD, Perverted Justice coordinated a sting operation with the crew of a hit NBC show, “To Catch A Predator.” One of the men ensnared in that sting was Bist, who initiated an online conversation with “Jennah,” believing this was a 13-year-old girl.

Bist engaged in various explicit, sexual conversations with “Jennah,” then traveled to what was ostensibly her home to meet her for sexual activity. When he arrived there, Bist was confronted by host Chris Hansen. Upon attempting to leave, Bist was arrested, leading to the charges that he was found guilty of.

Before trial, Bist moved to dismiss the attempted lewd or lascivious battery charge against him on two grounds:

• #1: His conduct did not constitute attempted lewd or lascivious battery
• #2: He was objectively entrapped, as law enforcement’s conduct in collaborating with PJ and “To Catch A Predator” was so egregious that it violated his due process rights under the Florida and U.S. Constitutions 

The trial judge denied Bist’s motion, resulting in him entering a plea of no contest – reserving the right to appeal the judge’s ruling. He ultimately did so to the 5th DCA, renewing his argument that he was objectively entrapped by law enforcement, PJ, and “To Catch A Predator” (who Bist characterized as agents of FBPD).

However, the 5th DCA did not agree with Bist’s argument, and voted to affirm his conviction for attempted lewd battery. Finding that Bist was not objectively entrapped (e.g. Bist’s due process rights were not violated), the 5th DCA wrote:

“Here, we do not have a situation where law enforcement incentivized, induced, or otherwise manufactured the instrumentalities for the crime to occur. Rather, Perverted Justice’s volunteers simply entered online chat rooms and waited for someone to solicit sexual activity from a person believed to be a minor. Perverted Justice created nothing more than an opportunity. This is not prohibited. State v. Dickinson, 370 So.2d 762, 763 (Fla.1979). Law enforcement may provide the facilities necessary to carry out the crime, and the mere use of deceit does not violate due process. Id. (quoting U.S. v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 435–36, 93 S.Ct. 1637, 36 L.Ed.2d 366 (1973)). 

“Although Perverted Justice had a contingency fee arrangement with NBC, Bist was not solicited, induced, or otherwise lured into seeking a sexual liaison with a Perverted Justice decoy. The undisputed facts show that Bist, on his own initiative, contacted “Jennah” and set up a meeting intending to engage in sexual activity with a thirteen-year-old girl. Any concern that Perverted Justice had an incentive to manufacture crime or commit perjury is alleviated by the fact that every conversation between Bist and the decoy was electronically recorded and stored. There is absolutely no suggestion that Bist did not voluntarily engage in the conversations or that the transcribed contents are anything but accurate.”

Essentially, the 5th DCA found that because Bist voluntarily entered a chat with “Jennah” and promoted the idea of soliciting her for sex, law enforcement did not “manufacture” or “induce” the crime (required for a finding of objective entrapment).

The 5th DCA also noted that FBPD’s failure to supervise PJ did not violate Bist’s due process rights, as there was no impermissible conduct engaged in by the individual who impersonated “Jennah”:

“Further, the mere failure to supervise or monitor Perverted Justice does not violate due process. See State v. Lopez, 908 So.2d 484, 485 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (holding that “failure to properly supervise the confidential informant, standing alone, did not amount to a due process violation”); State v. Figuereo, 761 So.2d 1252, 1255 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (same). It is a lack of supervision resulting in unscrupulous conduct by an informant which gives rise to due process concerns. There is no suggestion of impropriety by Perverted Justice, and the recording and storage of all communications between Bist and the decoy insured the integrity of the investigation. Based on the foregoing, we do not find the methods employed by law enforcement so outrageous that due process considerations would bar prosecution.”

The 5th DCA also rejected Bist’s argument that his arrival at what he believed to be the fictional minor’s home was insufficient to complete the offense of attempted lewd or lascivious battery, as he performed various “overt acts” towards the competition of lewd or lascivious battery:

“In the instant case, Bist prepared to, and took significant steps towards consummating his desire to have sex with a thirteen-year-old. He conducted sexually explicit online conversations and arranged to meet the girl at her home to engage in sexual activity. Beyond these preparatory acts, Bist drove over 200 miles from his home in West Palm Beach to the decoy home in Flagler Beach. He arrived at the prearranged time with flowers, chocolates, lubricant, and condoms. Not only did Bist travel a substantial distance in pursuance of his criminal intent, but he also brought with him items to facilitate his criminal intent and physically entered the decoy home. … These facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, are sufficient to prove a prima facie case of attempted lewd and lascivious battery. Accordingly, we affirm.”

In sum, Bist v. State, 35 So.3d 936 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) marks a significant development in Florida’s corpus of case law on objective entrapment. The 5th DCA held that:

• Law enforcement’s collaboration with an outside “watchdog” group and the crew of “To Catch A Predator” did not violate Bist’s due process rights
• Because of this, the attempted lewd battery charge against him did not require dismissal on objective entrapment grounds
• Bist’s “course of conduct” provided a sufficient legal basis to conclude that he committed attempted lewd battery
• Because of this, his no contest plea and sentence were affirmed 

Florida’s criminal defense community should take note of Bist v. State, 35 So.3d 936 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010), as it provides a comprehensive analysis of when objective entrapment occurs (or does not occur) in Florida. 

Moreover, echoing Byun v. State, 294 So. 3d 418 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019), Bist reinforces the fact that attempted lewd battery charges may stem from soliciting and traveling to meet a minor.

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