“Lack of Belief” Defense in Florida Traveling to Meet a Minor Cases

September 5, 2025 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense, Sex Crimes Social Share

In Florida, someone may be charged with traveling to meet a minor (Fla. Stat. 847.0135(4)) after being ensnared in a police sting. Traveling to meet a minor for the purpose of sexual activity in Florida is a second-degree felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

Many defenses to this charge exist, such as entrapment or lack of intent to engage in sexual activity. But one potential defense that is commonly overlooked is that the defendant did not have a genuine belief they were communicating with a minor. 

This defense to traveling to meet a minor charges in Florida is not applicable if someone traveled or attempted to travel to engage in sexual activity with an actual person under the age of eighteen. But someone’s lack of a genuine belief they were communicating with a minor is a potential defense if the child is fictional (e.g. an undercover officer).

This blog will explore the “lack of belief” defense to traveling to meet a minor charge, and when this relatively uncommon defense is more or less likely to be successful.

For someone to be convicted of traveling to meet a minor in Florida, the State must prove all of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

• The defendant used a computer, online service, internet service or electronic device (such as a phone, tablet, or laptop) to communicate with another person
• During the communication, the defendant intended to seduce, solicit, lure or entice a child (under the age of eighteen) or someone believed to be a child to engage in unlawful sexual activity
• The defendant then traveled or attempted to travel to a location within Florida with the intent to meet the minor (or person believed to be a minor) for the purpose of engaging in unlawful sexual activity

Traveling to meet a minor is a second-degree felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. It is also a second-degree felony to solicit a parent, guardian, or custodian of a child (or someone believed to be a child) to consent to their child’s participation in an illegal sex act. Shelley v. State, 134 So. 3d 1138 (Fla. 2d. DCA 2014).

If someone is arrested and charged with traveling to meet a minor after they are caught up in a police sting, they will often be hit with the additional charges of online solicitation of a minor (Fla. Stat. 847.0135(3)) and unlawful use of a two-way communications device (Fla. Stat. 934.215). 

Both are third-degree felonies punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine. However, the Florida Supreme Court has ruled that because the elements of these additional offenses are subsumed by traveling, charging and convicting someone of all three for the same course of conduct violates their constitutional protection against double jeopardy. State v. Shelley, 176 So.3d 914 (Fla. 2015).

Though moving to dismiss these charges on double jeopardy grounds can reduce someone’s potential sentencing exposure and avoids a violation of their rights, a traveling to meet a minor conviction still carries up to 15 years in prison. Thus, it is critical to explore every reasonable defense to a traveling charge if someone is accused.

One of these defenses relies upon the plain text of Florida’s prohibition on traveling to meet a minor (Fla. Stat. 847.0135(4)). The statute makes it unlawful to:

“Travel any distance either within this state, to this state, or from this state by any means, who attempts to do so, or who causes another to do so or to attempt to do so for the purpose of engaging in any illegal act described in chapter 794, chapter 800, or chapter 827, or to otherwise engage in other unlawful sexual conduct with a child or with another person believed by the person to be a child…”

There are two key takeaways from this portion of the statute. The first is the fact that mistake of age is not a defense to this charge. Someone cannot solicit an actual minor (a person under 18) and travel to meet them for sexual activity, then claim they “didn’t know” it was a child. State v. Washington, 114 So. 3d 182 (Fla. 3d. DCA 2012).

But the inverse is also true. If the person someone travels to meet for the purpose of sexual activity is not a minor at all (e.g. a law enforcement officer posing as a child), the State is required to prove that the defendant had an actual belief the person they were traveling to meet was under the age of 18.

In traveling cases, the State will often contend that the act of traveling is itself proof beyond a reasonable doubt that someone genuinely believed they were planning to meet a minor for sexual activity (as opposed to an adult or undercover officer). The argument is made that unless the defendant was certain they were meeting an underage victim, they would not have traveled.

But there are sometimes issues with this. In particular, arguing that traveling itself proves belief beyond a reasonable doubt ignores the story that online communications between an undercover officer and a defendant may tell about whether the defendant’s belief they were meeting a minor was genuine.

Some hypothetical examples of a person traveling despite a lack of an actual belief they are communicating with a minor may include:

• B is texting C, an undercover officer. C sends a filtered selfie image purporting to be a minor. B replies with, “You’re definitely an adult and you can’t convince me otherwise.” C does not push back on this and responds with a laughing emoji. B then travels to meet C and is charged with traveling to meet a minor.
• D is chatting with E, an undercover officer, who claims to be 15. D repeatedly states things like, “Sure, whatever, you’re probably just some cop pretending,” and, “No real 15-year-old talks like this.” Despite the skepticism, D agrees to meet up not because he believes E is a child, but because D wants to see “who it really is.” D is arrested upon arrival.
• F and G (an undercover officer) exchange messages. G says she is 14, but F responds, “Lol, nice try. If you were really 14, there’s no way you’d be on this app without your parents catching you. You’re obviously older.” Later, when arranging a meeting, F again says, “I’ll come by, but I know you’re not a child.” F travels, expecting to meet an adult who has been role-playing online, and is arrested.

In each of the above cases, there is clear disbelief that the defendant is speaking with a minor. Thus, using travel as automatic proof that someone was attempting to engage in sexual activity with a minor can be an error in these cases, as there is sometimes a lack of genuine belief even with traveling.

Importantly, this does not matter if the person communicating with someone is an actual minor rather than an undercover officer. If a real child uses a dating app or online forum, and someone travels to meet them for sexual activity, this is always a crime. A “lack of belief” argument may only be made if there is no actual minor involved.

The viability of a “lack of belief” defense varies on a case by case basis. If someone’s chat history with an undercover officer shows repeated, intense skepticism as to the alleged minor (e.g. texts such as “you’re not a kid”), this may be a potent defense. If little to no skepticism is expressed, it is almost certain to fail.

In sum, a “lack of belief” defense may be effective in a Florida traveling to meet a minor case only if the victim is not an actual minor (e.g. an undercover officer) and the defendant was genuinely and consistently skeptical during their communications of the faux minor’s age (e.g. texts saying “I don’t think you’re a kid and you won’t convince me otherwise”).

Note: There are many more defenses available if someone is charged with traveling to meet a minor in Florida. A comprehensive breakdown of those defenses can be found here.

If someone is arrested and formally charged in Florida with traveling to meet 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