Major FL Court Finds No Subjective Entrapment in New Ruling

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

Case Summary

Florida’s 6th District Court of Appeal ruled in late February 2026 that the defendant was not clearly induced to commit the charged offenses, reversing a judge’s order dismissing the case.

• CASE: State v. Gadbois (Fla. 6th DCA, Feb. 28, 2026)
• CHARGE(S): Soliciting Prostitution
• OUTCOME: Dismissal of the case REVERSED, as the 6th DCA found it was a question for the jury whether Gadbois was induced to commit the charged offense. 

Entrapment in Florida Criminal Cases

In Florida, entrapment is a total defense to criminal charges. As a general rule, entrapment occurs when law enforcement relies upon impermissible tactics to manufacture a crime that would not have otherwise been committed by the defendant. To learn more about entrapment, click here.

There are two types of entrapment under Florida law – objective and subjective. The differences between these are critical to understand, as knowing which of these defenses (or both) to argue can meaningfully improve the odds of a favorable outcome for the defendant in a criminal case.

Objective entrapment occurs when law enforcement acts so egregiously in creating a crime, that prosecuting the defendant would violate their due process rights – regardless of if they are guilty (or were predisposed to commit the offense(s)). Dippolito v. State, 275 So.3d 653 (Fla 4th DCA 2019))

Unlike subjective entrapment, objective entrapment is strictly decided as a matter of law (e.g. in the form of a pretrial motion to dismiss/motion for judgment of acquittal argued to the JUDGE – not the jury). Though Florida courts have historically been reluctant to find objective entrapment to have occurred, examples of cases where this has been recognized include:

• 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))
• 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))

It is important to note that just because law enforcement engages in undercover operations (e.g. a sting operation), does not mean that a defendant has been entrapped. Under Florida law, officers are given latitude to engage directly in stings or utilize confidential informants – so long as their tactics do not “cross the line” into objective or subjective entrapment. For more, click here.

The second form of entrapment in Florida is subjective (or statutory) entrapment. Codified under Fla. Stat. 777.201 and Munoz v. State, 629 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 1993), subjective entrapment occurs if and when law enforcement impermissibly induces a nonpredisposed defendant to commit one or more crimes.

Inducement occurs when the police go beyond creating a “mere opportunity” for someone to act unlawfully – and rely upon tactics such as persuasion, threats, or promises or friendship to get someone to commit the charged offense(s). To learn more about inducement, click here.

Per Munoz v. State, 629 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 1993) and its progeny, common 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…”)

Note: Unlike objective entrapment, subjective entrapment can be argued in the form of a pretrial motion to dismiss or a motion for judgment of acquittal (e.g. to the judge) OR to the jury at trial, or both. For more, click here.

For a subjective entrapment defense to succeed, it is required that a defendant first establish they were induced to commit the charged crime(s) by a preponderance (majority) of the evidence. If this occurs, the burden then shifts to the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was predisposed to commit the charged crimes.

A defendant is predisposed if they were “ready and willing, without persuasion” to commit the charged offense(s) before law enforcement gave them the opportunity to do so. If someone was indeed predisposed, this automatically defeats a subjective entrapment defense – only objective entrapment can be successfully argued. For more on predisposition, click here.

In the event that a defendant believes they were subjectively entrapped, they are likely to file a pretrial motion to dismiss the charge(s) against them on those grounds. Gennette v. State, 124 So.3d 273 (Fla 1st DCA 2013) 

When such a motion is filed, the trial judge must evaluate if, when viewing the undisputed facts in a light most favorable to the State, a jury could reasonably conclude the defendant was NOT entrapped. If no reasonable jury could find that no entrapment occurred (e.g. inducement/lack of predisposition are clear), the trial judge has the authority to dismiss the charges before trial.

In one recent Florida case involving solicitation of prostitution (the “prostitute” was actually an undercover police officer), a defendant filed a pretrial motion to dismiss the charge on subjective entrapment grounds. He argued that inducement and his lack of predisposition were clear – so he was entitled to have the charges thrown out.

An Orange County trial judge AGREED and dismissed the charge against the defendant, finding he was subjectively entrapped as a matter of law. But when the State appealed the judge’s order, Florida’s 6th District Court of Appeal reversed it and reinstated the charge against the defendant. 

Let’s take a look at that case – Gadbois v. State, — So.3d —- (Fla. 6th DCA, Feb. 28 2026) and discuss what it means for those who wish to pursue an entrapment defense in Florida.

KEY CASE: Gadbois v. State, — So.3d —- (Fla. 6th DCA, Feb. 28 2026)

In Gadbois, the defendant (Gadbois) was arrested and charged with soliciting prostitution. When Gadbois filed a pretrial motion to dismiss on the basis that he was subjectively entrapped, it was granted by the trial judge. According to the 6th DCA, the undisputed facts of the case were:

“The Orange County Sheriff’s Office occasionally conducts “sting” operations. During one such operation on South Orange Blossom Trail, an undercover agent dressed as, and mimicked the actions of, a prostitute, i.e. drawing closer to the busy street and then retreating, all the while with a hotel behind her. During this performance, she encountered Gadbois when he pulled his car off the main road to enter the hotel’s parking lot where she stood in hopes of attracting the right attention. After Gadbois entered the lot, a conversation between the two ensued. According to the agent, Gadbois asked her if the police were bothering her and she in turn asked him if he wanted to party. Gadbois responded that he had just gotten off work and needed to shower; she responded that he could use hers in the hotel room just behind them.”

“While she testified that he agreed, he tells a different story. In any event, their conversation continued. The agent testified that she quoted Gadbois the price which he agreed to but needed to get money first. Gadbois stated that he declined. As Gadbois drove away, the police pulled him over and arrested him. Later, the State charged Gadbois with offering to commit, committing, or engaging in prostitution, lewdness, or assignation by sexual intercourse in violation of section 796.07(2)(e), Florida Statutes (2024). Gadbois successfully moved to dismiss this charge, stating under oath in his motion that he “did not initiate any criminal activity nor did he initiate any communication with” the agent and prevailing on his defense that the government’s “sting” operation subjectively entrapped him.”

Appealing the trial judge’s dismissal of the case, the State argued that Gadbois had not proven he was impermissibly induced to commit the charged offense by a preponderance of the evidence. The State asserted that Gadbois was simply given the “opportunity” to solicit the undercover officer – he was not coaxed, cajoled, or otherwise persuaded to do so.

Because inducement was not clear, the State asserted the trial judge erred as a matter of law by granting Gadbois’s pretrial motion to dismiss. The 6th DCA AGREED, reinstating the charge against Gadbois and writing:

“Gadbois asserts, as he did below, that the undercover agent interrupted his commute home by approaching his vehicle “[u]ninvited and unprompted” and “initiat[ing] a conversation.” But the agent testified that Gadbois pulled his car off the road to enter the hotel parking lot where the agent dressed and acted like a prostitute. Gadbois argues that it was the agent who turned their conversation to the topic of sex, but differing conclusions can be drawn from their conversation and the context in which it took place, and such an invitation does not per se amount to inducement.”

“Inducement is defined as including ‘persuasion, fraudulent representations, threats, coercive tactics, harassment, promises of reward, or pleas based on need, sympathy[,] or friendship.” State v. Lopez-Garcia, 356 So. 3d 857, 860 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022) (quoting Rivera v. State, 180 So. 3d 1195, 1197 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)). “Inducement cannot be found by prompting or creating an opportunity.” Id. (quoting State v. Harper, 254 So. 3d 479, 486 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)). Accepting the undercover agent’s account of their interaction and the conversation that followed, a jury could conclude that the government merely created the opportunity, and that alone does not qualify as inducement. Because inducement was disputed, the trial court erred by granting Gadbois’s motion to dismiss.”

Put simply, because a “factual question” existed for the jury to resolve (e.g. the actions of the undercover officer could reasonably be viewed as not constituting inducement under Florida law), the trial judge made a mistake in granting Gadbois’s motion to dismiss on subjective entrapment grounds.

In sum, Gadbois v. State, — So.3d —- (Fla. 6th DCA 2026) marks a significant development in Florida’s corpus of case law surrounding entrapment. The 6th DCA held that:

• Inducement required the officer to use prohibited tactics such as persuasion, fraudulent representations, threats, coercion, or promises of reward/pleas of sympathy or friendship
• Gadbois did not prove by a preponderance (majority) of the evidence that the undercover officer did any of this
• Though the undercover officer approached Gadbois’s car and “initiated” a conversation that ultimately led to the charges, this could have been reasonably viewed by a jury as merely creating an “opportunity” for Gadbois to commit the charged crime 
• Because inducement was not conclusively established (e.g. a jury could reasonably have found no inducement), the trial judge erred by dismissing the case against Gadbois before trial 

Florida’s criminal defense community should take note of Gadbois v. State, — So.3d —- (Fla. 6th DCA 2026), as it reinforces that defendants must prove law enforcement impermissibly induced them to act criminally for a pretrial entrapment motion to dismiss to be considered.

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