Major FL Court Finds No ‘Inducement’ For Entrapment Purposes: Here’s Why

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

Case Summary

Florida’s 4th District Court of Appeal ruled that a defendant was not entrapped by police in a sting operation during which he allegedly solicited what he believed to be a minor for sex.

• CASE: Marreel v. State, 841 So.2d 600 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
• Charge(s): Solicitation of a Minor
• Outcome: Guilty plea AFFIRMED, as the defendant was not induced by law enforcement to solicit the “minor” – defeating an entrapment defense.

Solicitation of a Minor Crimes in Florida

In Florida, solicitation of a minor for unlawful sexual activity (Fla. Stat. 847.0135(3)) is a very serious felony.

For someone 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)

Online solicitation of a minor is a third-degree felony, punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine. To learn more, click here.

If someone is charged with solicitation or traveling to meet a minor for unlawful sexual activity in Florida (Fla. Stat. 847.0135(4)), they may consider an entrapment defense if the “minor” they solicited and/or traveled to meet was actually an adult (e.g. an undercover officer/an informant). 

Entrapment is a total defense to criminal charges in Florida – meaning that if someone has been entrapped, they are not guilty of the underlying charges as a matter of law. There are two types of entrapment in Florida – objective entrapment and subjective entrapment. The difference between these is critical to understand.

Objective entrapment occurs when law enforcement engages in such egregious misconduct that prosecuting a defendant for charges that stemmed from that police activity would violate their due process rights – regardless of whether they are guilty. Dippolito v. State, 275 So.3d 653 (Fla 4th DCA 2019)

Examples of objective entrapment that have been recognized by Florida courts 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))

Objective entrapment is generally considered the “harder” of the entrapment defenses to deploy successfully – as law enforcement has the authority to use confidential informants and engage in sting operations (as long as they don’t “cross the line”). Objective entrapment is argued only to the judge (e.g. in a motion to dismiss as a matter of law), not to the jury at trial.

The second entrapment defense in Florida is subjective entrapment. Codified by Munoz v. State, 629 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 1993) and Fla. Stat. 777.201, subjective (statutory) entrapment occurs when law enforcement induces a non-predisposed defendant to commit one or more crimes.

There are two prongs of the subjective entrapment calculus – inducement and predisposition. The first of these, inducement, must be established by a preponderance (majority) of the evidence.

Per Munoz v. State, 629 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 1993) and its progeny, examples of inducement include:

• Coaxing, persuasion, cajoling and trickery
• Promises of friendship, monetary gain or affection
• Badgering or coercion 

If inducement is shown by the defendant, the burden of proof shifts to the State to establish that the defendant was predisposed to commit the underlying offenses. Unless someone was “ready and willing, without persuasion” to act unlawfully (e.g. complete the charged crimes), police inducement requires the dismissal of charges against them on subjective entrapment grounds.

Note: To learn more about inducement for subjective entrapment purposes in Florida, click here. For more on predisposition, click here.

Though a defendant must establish inducement before the burden shifts to the State to show the defendant was predisposed to engage in unlawful activity, this is usually not extremely hard to do. Courts generally recognize that law enforcement’s reliance on even one prohibited “tactic” can constitute inducement. Gennette v. State, 124 So.3d 273 (Fla 1st DCA 2013)

However, inducement does not exist simply because law enforcement officers (or an informant) were “involved” in making a crime happen. In certain cases, Florida’s courts reject subjective entrapment defenses on the basis that the defendant failed to show they were induced by law enforcement to act unlawfully (even when their charges arose from a sting operation).

One such case in which this occurred (involving a charge of online solicitation of a minor) was Marreel v. State, 841 So.2d 600 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Let’s take a look at Marreel and discuss what it means for defendants seeking to argue that they were subjectively entrapped in Florida.

KEY CASE: Marreel v. State, 841 So.2d 600 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)

In Marreel, the defendant (Marreel) pled guilty to one count of “computer child exploitation” (e.g. solicitation of a minor). Marreel filed a pretrial motion to dismiss on subjective entrapment grounds, but this was denied by the trial judge.

At the motion hearing, it was revealed that a law enforcement officer entered an AOL chatroom titled “Married Wants Affair,” posing as a 15-year-old girl. Marreel messaged the fictional “girl,” with the conversation moving over time from basic questions about life to Marreel expressing a desire to engage in sexual activity with the ostensible minor.

After weeks of emailing and online chatting, Marreel arranged to meet “Kelly” at a local fast food restaurant with the intention of engaging in sexual activity with her. This led to his arrest. According to the 4th DCA:

“The trial court denied appellant’s pre-trial motion to dismiss which was based on entrapment, stating: Although the initial contact between the Defendant and officer occurred in a chat room for “Married Wants Affair,” the officer established within the first two minutes that he was representing himself to be a 15 year old girl. The Defendant being aware of the age, continued to exchange messages with the officer and within fourteen minutes asked her if she was “just looking for a sexual relationship?.” The transcripts do not support a conclusion that the Defendant was induced or lured into a sexual conversation or that he was not predisposed to this type of activity. The Defendant has not met the initial burden under Munoz v. State, 629 So.2d 90 (Fla.1993), of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the government induced him to commit the offense charged.  At this pretrial stage, the Court does not find that “entrapment as a matter of law” has been established.”

Marreel challenged the trial judge’s order to the 4th DCA, noting that law enforcement created the profile of a 15-year-old girl and that “Kelly” (the “minor”) re-initiated the conversation with Marreel multiple times. 

However, the 4th DCA rejected Marreel’s claim that he was induced to act – finding that police did no more than give Marreel an “opportunity” to commit the crime that he took advantage of without hesitation: 

“In conclusion, there was no unlawful government inducement in the instant case. After appellant made contact with “Kelly” in the “Married Wants Affair” chatroom, she immediately told him that she was only fifteen years old. Upon learning “Kelly’s” age, appellant was not deterred but continued to engage her in the idea of having an affair involving oral sex, touching, and possibly more. “Kelly” merely created an opportunity for appellant to attempt to lure or entice a minor to participate in sexual activities. There were no coercive tactics or “arm-twisting” on the part of law enforcement; appellant was already on the “iniquitous path.” Gifford, 17 F.3d at 468. The fact that “Kelly” helped to keep the idea of an affair going by initiating some of the later contacts with appellant is of no moment. By the end of the first chat, appellant had already shown that he was “predisposed” and that, independent of the government’s actions, he stood “ready and willing, without persuasion, to commit the offense.” Munoz, 629 So.2d at 99. Accordingly, the judgment on review is AFFIRMED.”

In essence, the 4th DCA ruled that the creation of the fictional minor’s profile did not inherently constitute inducement of Marreel to act on the part of law enforcement. As Marreel immediately seized upon the opportunity to chat with a minor and introduced the idea of sexual activity into the conversation, inducement was not proven under Munoz. Thus, his entrapment defense failed.

In sum, Marreel v. State, 841 So.2d 600 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) marks a significant development in Florida’s corpus of case law on the issue of inducement for subjective entrapment purposes. Florida’s 4th District Court of Appeal (Southeast Florida) found that:

• Marreel eagerly messaged what he believed to be a 15-year-old girl in a “sexual” AOL chatroom
• Marreel quickly introduced the idea of engaging in sexual activity with the “minor” and pushed this for weeks before his arrest
• Law enforcement did no more than give Marreel the “opportunity” to commit the offense of solicitation of a minor (by creating the fake profile)
• Because this was not inducement as a matter of law, Marreel was not entrapped – so his guilty plea was affirmed (e.g. he was not unlawfully charged/prosecuted)

Florida’s criminal defense community should take note of Marreel v. State, 841 So.2d 600 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), as it shows when courts are likely to find a defendant was not induced by law enforcement for subjective entrapment purposes.

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