Major Court REJECTS Non-Predisposed Defendant’s Entrapment Defense in Solicitation Case: Why?

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

Case Summary

Florida’s 5th District Court of Appeal ruled that the defendant was not objectively entrapped – and was not subjectively entrapped because despite an apparent lack of predisposition to commit the offenses, he was not induced to act unlawfully.

• CASE: Senger v. State, 200 So.3d 137 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)
• Charge(s): Solicitation of a Minor, Traveling to Meet a Minor
• Outcome: Convictions AFFIRMED, as the defendant was not induced by law enforcement to commit the offenses.

Solicitation of a Minor Charges in Florida

In Florida, solicitation of a minor (Fla. Stat. 847.0135(3)) and traveling to meet a minor (Fla. Stat. 847.0135(4)) are very serious felony offenses.

For a person to be guilty of solicitation of a minor (Fla. Stat. 847.0135(3)), the State must prove all of the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

• The defendant knowingly used a computer, online service, internet service, local bulletin board service or any device capable of electronic data transmission
• The defendant used the device to seduce, solicit, lure or entice a minor (under 18) or person believed to be a minor (e.g. undercover law enforcement) to engage in sexual activity (or attempted to do so)

For someone to be guilty of traveling to meet a minor, the State must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

• The defendant knowingly used a computer, online service, internet service, local bulletin board service or any device capable of electronic data transmission
• The defendant used the device to seduce, solicit, lure or entice a minor (under 18) or person believed to be a minor to engage in sexual activity (or attempted to do so)
• After that solicitation, the defendant then traveled or attempted to travel within Florida to meet the minor (or person believed to be a minor) to engage in unlawful sexual activity

Solicitation of a minor (or person believed to be a minor) is a third-degree felony in Florida (up to 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine). Traveling to meet a minor is considered a second-degree felony, punishable by up to 15 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. For more, click here.

Important: Since the elements of solicitation of a minor are entirely subsumed by the elements of traveling to meet a minor, charging both offenses for the same course of criminal conduct is a violation of a defendant’s protection against double jeopardy under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. For more, click here.

If someone is accused of soliciting a person they believed to be a minor that turned out to be an undercover law enforcement officer (or confidential informant) (and/or traveling to meet them for sex) a potential defense is entrapment. There are two types of entrapment recognized under Florida law – objective entrapment and subjective entrapment.

Objective entrapment is generally considered the “harder” of the entrapment defenses to prove. It occurs when law enforcement engages in such egregious misconduct, that the defendant’s right to due process if they are prosecuted due to the police activity (even if they are guilty).

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:

• A police 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))
• 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))

By contrast, subjective entrapment (also known as statutory entrapment) is codified by Fla. Stat. 777.201 and Munoz v. State, 629 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 1993). It occurs when law enforcement induces a non-predisposed defendant to commit an offense. Subjective entrapment is more commonly used as a defense in solicitation/traveling cases.

 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).

Per Munoz v. State, 629 So. 2d 90, 99 (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 establishes inducement by a preponderance of the evidence, the burden shifts to the State to prove the defendant was predisposed (“ready and willing, without persuasion”) to commit the charged crime(s) beyond a reasonable doubt. If no reasonable jury could conclude this, the defendant was entrapped (requiring pretrial dismissal of the case). For more, click here.

Note: While subjective entrapment can be argued in the form of a pretrial motion to dismiss or at trial itself, objective entrapment must be decided as a matter of law (e.g. via motion to dismiss). For more, click here.

Sometimes, a defendant will argue subjective and objective entrapment in the form of a pretrial motion to dismiss (pursuant to Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.190(c)(4)). If this is denied and the defendant enters a no contest plea (or is found guilty at trial), a defendant may appeal the judge’s ruling to the Florida District Court of Appeal that has jurisdiction over the trial court.

One case where exactly this happened is Senger v. State, 200 So.3d 137 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016). There, Florida’s 5th District Court of Appeal rejected Senger’s claim that he was impermissibly entrapped objectively and subjectively as a matter of law. 

The 5th DCA affirmed the legality of the charges against him and allowed the judge’s sentence in Senger’s case to stand – even after acknowledging Senger did not appear to be predisposed to commit the crimes. But why?

Let’s look at Senger v. State, 200 So.3d 137 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) and discuss what it means for defendants arguing they were entrapped in Florida.

KEY CASE: Senger v. State, 200 So.3d 137 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)

In Senger, the defendant (Senger) made two arguments, both of which were rejected by the 5th DCA (Northeast Florida’s highest court):

• #1: Senger was objectively and subjectively entrapped as a matter of law
• #2: Florida’s anti-child solicitation law was an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (for more on this, click here)

The gravamen of the appeal was the claim that he was objectively and subjectively entrapped by police when they pretended to be a minor online and ensnared Senger in a sting operation that led to his arrest. On the objective entrapment front, the 5th DCA wrote:

“Senger essentially argues that, considering he has no prior arrests or criminal history, was not the target of a criminal investigation, and had no prior improper sexual contact with minor children, either in person or over the Internet, the previously described actions of law enforcement were so egregious that due process principles should “absolutely bar the government from invoking judicial processes to obtain a conviction.”

“We disagree. Here, law enforcement did not specifically target Senger. Rather, it simply presented an opportunity and waited until Senger contacted them. This activity is not prohibited. Bist, 35 So.3d at 940 (citing State v. Dickinson, 370 So.2d 762, 763 (Fla. 1979)); see also State v. Murphy, 124 So.3d 323, 330 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (finding “nothing egregious or outrageous” in online advertisement for sex with minor used in targeting child-sex predators), disapproved on other grounds, State v. Shelley, 176 So.3d 914, 916 (Fla. 2015).”

Put simply, because law enforcement did the “same thing” it always does during online sting operations and did not single out Senger to target, there was no objective entrapment. Since “presenting the opportunity” to commit an offense is not objective entrapment, the 5th DCA concluded Senger was not objectively entrapped. For more, click here.

Next, the 5th DCA turned to a subjective entrapment analysis. The 5th DCA did not dispute that there was no clear evidence Senger was predisposed to commit the offense (e.g. targeting minors before he identified the undercover officer’s profile and interacted with it). 

However, the 5th DCA concluded that Senger’s predisposition (or lack thereof) did not have to be considered in the trial judge’s decision to deny the motion to dismiss – because Senger failed to show he was induced to commit the crimes. The 5th DCA wrote:

“We find that the trial court did not err in denying Senger’s motion to dismiss based on subjective entrapment. Senger basically argues that the undisputed evidence of his lack of a prior criminal history and no inappropriate involvement with minor children conclusively establishes his lack of predisposition to commit this crime. However, the issue of the lack of predisposition is not reached if the first step—inducement—is not established. Munoz, 629 So.2d at 99. Here, we need not reach Senger’s claim of lack of predisposition, as there was no inducement because “[n]either mere solicitation nor the creation of opportunities to commit an offense comprises inducement.” Marreel v. State, 841 So.2d 600, 603 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).

 “Inducement can be found only when the government has ventured beyond a simple offer, say, by pleading with a defendant….” United States v. Gifford, 17 F.3d 462, 468 (1st Cir. 1994) (citations omitted). The evidence before the trial court sufficiently demonstrated that the government was not “pleading” with Senger, rather, Senger’s responses to law enforcement’s Craigslist advertisement were affirmative and arguably enthusiastic, as evidenced by his offers to actively participate in providing sexual teaching and guidance to what Senger believed was a fourteen-year-old girl.”

Put simply, because Senger “enthusiastically” participated in the criminal conduct without even being prompted to do so by law enforcement (e.g. coaxed/persuaded), he was not induced – so his subjective entrapment defense failed as a matter of law.

In sum, Senger v. State, 200 So.3d 137 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) marks a significant development in Florida’s corpus of case law on objective and subjective entrapment. The 5th DCA found that:

• Senger was not objectively entrapped, as law enforcement permissibly operated an online profile during a sting operation (posing as a minor) and did not specifically target Senger
• Senger was not subjectively entrapped, because he was not induced to commit the crimes 
• As a result, the legality of his plea/the trial judge’s sentence was affirmed

Florida’s criminal defense community should take note of Senger v. State, 200 So.3d 137 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016), as it is an intriguing case study on how Florida courts analyze objective and subjective entrapment claims.

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