Major Florida Court: Defendant Was Subjectively AND Objectively Entrapped in Child Pornography Sting

December 4, 2025 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense, Sex Crimes Social Share

Florida’s 4th District Court of Appeal held in a landmark decision that a defendant with no criminal record who was sent child pornography by law enforcement was both subjectively and objectively entrapped, requiring his conviction to be reversed.

In Florida, entrapment is a total defense to criminal charges stemming from police activity that allegedly induced a defendant to act unlawfully, who would not have otherwise done so. The likelihood of an entrapment defense succeeding depends on the facts of a given case.

There are two types of entrapment defenses in Florida – objective and subjective entrapment. Objective entrapment occurs when law enforcement engages in misconduct (including illegal activity) that is so egregious, prosecuting the defendant would violate their due process rights regardless of if they are guilty.

Some examples of objective entrapment may include:

• Law enforcement manufactures drugs at a police station and then sells these to members of the community while undercover for the purpose of arresting them (State v. Williams, 623 So.2d 462, 466 (Fla. 1993))
• Law enforcement provides child pornography to one or more defendants during a sting operation 
• Undercover officers threaten someone’s life or serious bodily injury, forcing them to commit a crime before arresting them for doing so

Objective entrapment is generally harder to prove, so this is not frequently argued. Dippolito v. State, 275 So.3d 653 (Fla 4th DCA 2019). If a defendant alleges entrapment in a Florida criminal case, this is likely to be subjective (otherwise known as “statutory”) entrapment. This can be raised both before trial (via motion to dismiss) and at trial (if the motion is denied).

Per Munoz v. State, 629 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 1993) and Fla. Stat. 777.201, there are two prongs to evaluating whether subjective/statutory entrapment occurred. The first of these is determining, by a preponderance (majority) of the evidence, if the defendant was induced to act illegally. 

This does not just mean that “but-for” law enforcement’s involvement, the crime would not have happened. To prove inducement for purposes of an entrapment defense, law enforcement must have engaged in prohibited conduct such as (Gennette v. State, 124 So.3d 273 (Fla 1st DCA 2013)):

• Coaxing or cajoling a defendant into acting unlawfully (e.g. “Please do [the crime]…”)
• Promising the defendant friendship or monetary reward ($) if they complete the offense
• Impugning the defendant’s manhood or reputation (e.g. “You’re not a real man, you’re scared…”)
• Harassment and coercion (e.g. texting the defendant dozens of times after they stop responding pleading with them to commit the offense)

If and when inducement is established, the next step is to determine whether the State can show the defendant was predisposed to commit the underlying offense beyond a reasonable doubt. This means the State must prove the defendant was “ready and willing, without persuasion,” to engage in the charged illegal conduct even in the absence of inducement.

If the State can make no showing of predisposition and inducement is found to have occurred, the proper remedy is the pretrial dismissal of charges on subjective entrapment grounds (or a verdict of not guilty by entrapment at a jury trial, if a pretrial motion to dismiss was denied). DeMare v. State, 298 So. 3d 1269 (Fla. 2d. DCA 2020)

In most Florida criminal cases, only one type of entrapment is argued and found (either objective or subjective). But are there any cases in which a Florida defendant was found to have been both objectively and subjectively entrapped due to law enforcement misconduct?

The answer is yes. One such case, among the most famous, is Farley v. State, 848 So.2d 393 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Let’s break down Farley and discuss what it means for the future of entrapment defenses in Florida criminal trials.

KEY CASE: Farley v. State, 848 So.2d 393 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)

In Farley, the defendant (Farley) was accused of three counts of promoting a sexual performance by a child. Before trial, he filed a motion to dismiss on both objective and subjective entrapment grounds. 

Farley argued that he was not predisposed to commit the offense and the police inducement that led to the charges was so egregious that it violated his due process rights. Farley’s motion was denied, and he was ultimately convicted on all counts.

Farley’s case stemmed from South Florida law enforcement officers receiving a database of phone numbers from an unrelated child pornography investigation by police in Texas. The Texas investigators discovered a list of contact information (phone numbers) for what they suspected to be child pornography solicitors while conducting their probe.

After they sent this list to police in Broward County’s LEACH Taskforce, LEACH found one of those numbers belonged to Farley. Farley had no criminal record. Despite this fact, LEACH (law enforcement) created an advertisement soliciting Farley (among others) via email to purchase “taboo” pornography from a fictional adult website.

Farley responded to the unsolicited advertisement and initiated email communications with the undercover officers. An officer on the LEACH Taskforce began replying to Farley, prodding him to be even more specific with his requests for the type of pornography he wished to purchase. The conversation turned to minor males, and Farley was emailed an order form.

The order form, designed by the LEACH Taskforce, consisted of a variety of alleged “films” that were child pornography. Ultimately, Farley ordered three VHS tapes and the undercover officer promised he could pay a “delivery man” in cash for them. 

The LEACH Taskforce then sent an undercover officer with actual tapes of child pornography (that police had recovered from prior investigations) to Farley’s residence. He paid for the tapes, and was arrested 20 minutes later for possessing child pornography.

Farley’s entrapment defenses (both via motions to dismiss and argument to the jury) failed at trial, and he was convicted. But on appeal, Florida’s 4th District Court of Appeal (Southeast Florida) reversed Farley’s convictions, finding that he was both objectively and subjectively entrapped by the LEACH Taskforce.

The 4th DCA first performed a subjective entrapment analysis, finding that Farley was clearly induced to act improperly by law enforcement:

“In the present case, Farley was subjected to various acts of inducement by LEACH. The assurances of protection from government scrutiny could certainly be labeled fraudulent representations when made by government. … Farley was also confronted with an advertisement disseminated by the government, except he… was not willingly exposed to the advertisement. … What began as a plan to possibly uncover an offender from the Texas list, became a concerted effort to lure Farley into committing a crime. Therefore, inducement is present in Farley’s case, and the Munoz analysis may proceed to its second phase.”

The 4th DCA then turned to predisposition (“readiness and willingness, without persuasion, to act criminally”) and found that there was no evidence of this, so the State could not prove it:

“In the present case, there is no evidence that Farley was predisposed to possess child pornography. No evidence was adduced that Farley had ever purchased such pornography nor were any other pornographic materials found in his home. Additionally, Farley had never been arrested for anything in his life, let alone a child pornography offense.”

“In Farley’s case, inducement and lack of predisposition were clear upon the face of the facts. The State presented no evidence of past deviant behavior or criminal activity on Farley’s part. Therefore, entrapment rather than crime was at hand, and as a matter of law, the trial court should have granted Farley’s motion to dismiss.”

Though a finding of subjective entrapment was enough to defeat the State’s case against Farley, the 4th DCA nevertheless conducted an objective entrapment analysis. It found that the police conduct which facilitated Farley’s arrest (manufacturing copies of child pornography) was so egregious, it violated his due process rights:

“LEACH manufactured copies of videos featuring child pornography. Although child pornography may not be deadly like crack cocaine, child pornography may encourage and memorialize traumatic sex crimes. Additionally, Farley was not involved in an existing criminal undertaking in need of detection by law enforcement; rather, LEACH sought to manufacture crime based on a list of names and addresses of unknown origin.”

The 4th DCA also noted that the fictional website contained multiple disclaimers asserting that the government did not know about it and would not interfere, adding to the “entrapping” nature of the police conduct. The court concluded:

“What cements Farley’s case as one that violates due process, is not only the manufacture of crime, but the fact that such crime was manufactured under cover of a promise of protection from government interference. Thus, we conclude that the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss based on substantive due process/objective entrapment.”

“In conclusion, Farley established defenses of subjective entrapment as a matter of law and substantive due process/objective entrapment, and therefore, the trial court erred in denying Farley’s motion to dismiss. As a result, we reverse Farley’s conviction and sentence and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

In sum, Farley v. State, 848 So.2d 393 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) is a major decision in Florida’s case law surrounding both objective and subjective entrapment. The 4th DCA condemned the police activity that resulted in Farley’s arrest so strongly, that it found both subjective and objective entrapment.

The Farley court also held that law enforcement cannot send out child pornography during police stings, as this is a violation of law that constitutes objective entrapment (similar to manufacturing drugs to sell to potential buyers). 

If a Florida defendant plans to argue entrapment, it is important to know about Farley v. State. This case provides a better understanding of state law on this issue – and the viability of both objective and subjective entrapment defenses.

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