Major FL Court Dismisses Charges in Drug Trafficking Case Due to Entrapment

January 14, 2026 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense, Drug Charges Social Share

Florida’s 3rd District Court of Appeal dismissed the charges against a defendant accused of drug trafficking on the grounds that law enforcement induced him to engage in drug activity, and there was no evidence he was predisposed to do so.

In Florida, entrapment is a well-known but often misunderstood defense to criminal charges. Entrapment functions as a “total defense,” so if someone successfully argues they were entrapped, they are not guilty of the crimes that were the product of the entrapment.

Entrapment occurs when law enforcement improperly induce a defendant to commit a crime that would not have otherwise happened but for the police activity. Effectively, entrapment violates a defendant’s rights by making a “criminal” out of a non-criminal. 

There are two types of entrapment in Florida: objective entrapment and subjective entrapment. The difference between these is key to understand, as deciding whether to argue objective or subjective entrapment (or both) is an important strategic choice.

Objective entrapment is generally considered “harder” to prove. Objective entrapment occurs when law enforcement engages in particularly egregious activity (usually illegal) that so clearly violates a defendant’s due process rights, that it would be unjust to prosecute them even if they are guilty.

Examples of objective entrapment recognized by Florida courts include:   

• Law enforcement manufactures drugs 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 isprove because considered more “difficult” to establish due to the fact that police can legally go undercover (e.g. conduct sting operations). Thus, objective entrapment occurs only when law enforcement resorts to particularly egregious tactics, such as the ones above. Dippolito v. State, 275 So.3d 653 (Fla 4th DCA 2019)

Because of this, subjective entrapment is more frequently used as a defense. Codified by Munoz v. State, 629 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 1993) and Fla. Stat. 777.201, subjective entrapment (also referred to as statutory entrapment) occurs when law enforcement induces a non-predisposed person to commit a crime.

There are two “prongs” of the subjective entrapment defense: inducement and predisposition. The first of these, inducement to commit the offense(s), must be established by the defendant by a preponderance (majority) of the evidence.

Notably, inducement does not occur simply because undercover police officers or confidential informants (CIs) were involved in bringing about an arrest. Under Florida law, inducement is said to occur when law enforcement relies upon tactics that risk the underlying offense being committed by a person who is not “ready and willing” to act criminally.

Inducement methods prohibited under Florida law may include any of the following (Gennette v. State, 124 So.3d 273 (Fla 1st DCA 2013)):

• Coaxing, cajoling, or harassment (e.g. police repeatedly texting someone in an effort to “rope them in” to criminal activity when they have shown no interest)
• Promises of friendship with the defendant (e.g. “I know you’re lonely, but I’ll hang out with you all the time if you…”)
• Promises of monetary reward (e.g. “I’ll give you $1,000 if…”)

In the event that a defendant establishes they were induced by a preponderance of the evidence, the State must then prove that the defendant was predisposed to commit the underlying crime(s) beyond a reasonable doubt. If the State fails to do so, the defendant is not guilty as a matter of law on the grounds that they were subjectively entrapped (Fla. Stat. 777.201).

Important: To learn more about what qualifies as inducement for entrapment purposes in Florida, click here. For more on predisposition, click here.

If someone wishes to rely upon an entrapment defense, they can raise this before trial (in the form of a pretrial motion to dismiss as a matter of law), at trial, or both. A pretrial motion to dismiss is ruled on by the judge – but at trial, the jury has the final say.

In many cases, it is advisable to move for dismissal of the charges before trial on entrapment grounds (as a matter of law). Even if this fails, entrapment can be raised again at trial itself. This gives someone two “bites at the apple,” so to speak.

Sometimes, a pretrial motion to dismiss charges due to entrapment will be granted by the judge. If this occurs, the State can either decline to challenge this decision, or appeal it to a higher court (one of Florida’s District Courts of Appeal). 

In certain cases, appellate courts will reverse the ruling of the trial judge – forcing the issue to trial (e.g. letting the jury decide if entrapment occurred). But when entrapment is clear, appellate courts are likely to affirm a judge’s dismissal of the charges as a matter of law.

Let’s take a look at a major case involving Florida’s 3rd District Court of Appeal (Miami area) affirming the dismissal of charges against a defendant due to subjective entrapment – State v. Ramos, 632 So.2d 1078 (Fla. 3d. DCA 1994).

KEY CASE: State v. Ramos, 632 So.2d 1078 (Fla. 3d. DCA 1994)

In Ramos, the defendant (Diaz) was arrested and charged with burglary, trafficking in cocaine, and other offenses. The trial judge dismissed the charges against him on the basis that he was subjectively entrapped. The State appealed to the 3rd DCA, arguing that the trial judge erred.

Note: Though the case is titled “State v. Ramos,” the defendant found to have been entrapped was a co-defendant of Ramos’s, Lazaro Diaz.

According to the facts in the record, a “government agent” (confidential informant) contacted Diaz approximately fifteen times in an effort to get him involved in the drug transaction that led to the charges. Diaz eventually agreed and participated, resulting in his arrest. 

Before trial, Diaz moved for dismissal on subjective entrapment grounds (pursuant to Munoz v. State, 629 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 1993) and Fla. Stat. 777.201). He argued that he was induced (due to harassment from the confidential informant that led to his involvement in the transaction) and was not predisposed (Diaz had no criminal record of drug activity).

The trial judge agreed and granted the motion to dismiss. On appeal, the State argued the issue should be decided by the jury – not the judge. However, the 3rd DCA disagreed, affirming the trial judge’s dismissal of the case. 

The 3rd DCA applied Munoz to conclude that Diaz was “subjectively entrapped” to commit the charged crimes as a matter of law:

“Under the subjective test, we must first determine whether “an agent of the government induced the accused to commit the offense charged.” Munoz, 629 So.2d at 99. In the instant case, Diaz met his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a government agent induced him to commit the crime charged. The unrebutted evidence showed that the confidential informant contacted Diaz approximately fifteen or sixteen times in order to convince him to get involved in the drug transaction.”

“Since the above question was answered in the affirmative, the next inquiry is whether the defendant was “predisposed to commit the offense charged.” Id. As to this issue, Diaz met his burden of establishing lack of predisposition. Thereafter, the State failed to rebut this evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. As discussed earlier, the confidential informant had to contact Diaz approximately fifteen or sixteen times in order to persuade him to commit the offense. Moreover, the trial court found that there “was no history, information, or intelligence known to law enforcement of any involvement by [Diaz] in any narcotics activities or drug ‘rip-offs’ before the confidential informant brought [Diaz] into the scheme.”

Because the “unrebutted” evidence revealed Diaz was entrapped, the 3rd DCA found the issue was properly decided by the judge – as there was no “genuine dispute of material fact” for the jury to resolve:

“Section 777.201 provides that the issue of entrapment shall be submitted to the trier of fact. Section 777.201, Fla. Stat. (1991). However, when the factual issues above are not in dispute, “then the trial judge has the authority to rule on the issue of predisposition as a matter of law.” Munoz, 629 So.2d at 100. In the instant case, the factual issues above are not in dispute; the issue of entrapment does not have to be submitted to the trier of fact. Under the circumstances of this case we find that under the subjective test, Diaz was entrapped as a matter of law.”

In sum, State v. Ramos, 632 So.2d 1078 (Fla. 3d. DCA 1994) is a significant development in Florida’s corpus of case law surrounding the entrapment defense. The 3rd DCA found that:

• Diaz was induced to act unlawfully, as he was badgered (over 15 times) by a confidential informant until he gave in and participated in a drug transaction
• There was no evidence Diaz was “ready and willing, without persuasion” to commit the charged offenses – as he had no criminal record, and the confidential informant had to contact him many times before he agreed to the transaction
• Because inducement was clear and the State had no evidence of Diaz’s predisposition to engage in drug activity, the charges against him were properly dismissed as a matter of law

Florida’s criminal defense community should take note of State v. Ramos, 632 So.2d 1078 (Fla. 3d. DCA 1994), as it makes clear that law enforcement (or other government agents) harassing someone until they participate in unlawful activity is entrapment – as long as the State cannot prove the defendant’s predisposition beyond a reasonable doubt.

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 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