Major Florida Court Discusses Entrapment in Traveling to Meet a Minor Case

October 23, 2025 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense, Sex Crimes Social Share

In DeMare v. State, Florida’s 2nd District Court of Appeal discussed the defense of entrapment in traveling to meet a minor cases stemming from police sting operations.

If someone is charged with traveling to meet a minor and online solicitation of a minor in Florida (Fla. Stat. 847.0135), there are various defenses that may be pursued. One of these is the defense of entrapment, which may or may not be effective (depending on the facts of a case).

There are two types of entrapment defenses that can be raised in Florida. The first is objective entrapment. Dippolito v. State, 275 So.3d 653 (Fla 4th DCA 2019)

Objective entrapment requires police conduct that is so egregious that, regardless of if someone is guilty of the charged offense, proceeding with a prosecution fundamentally violates their due process rights. Examples may include:

• Law enforcement manufacturing drugs to sell to people while undercover
• Law enforcement sending or soliciting unlawful sexual material (e.g. child pornography) with the intent of arresting someone for possessing or producing it
• Law enforcement threatening to kill or harm someone if they do not commit a crime

Though objective entrapment is occasionally argued, it is generally quite difficult to establish given how high the bar is for such a claim to succeed. The more common entrapment claim in Florida is subjective (otherwise known as “statutory”) entrapment, codified by Fla. Stat. 777.201 and the Florida Supreme Court in Munoz v. State, 629 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 1993).

Statutory entrapment occurs when police induce a non-predisposed defendant to act criminally. In other words, it involves law enforcement deliberately acting in a manner that risks someone committing a crime that would not have otherwise done so – and in fact, results in the (alleged) commission of the offense.

If a defendant argues statutory entrapment occurred, this can either be found by a judge before trial (resulting in the dismissal of the charges) or by the jury at trial (resulting in a not guilty by entrapment verdict). As entrapment is an affirmative defense, the defendant must first prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the State induced them to act criminally.

This does not simply mean that undercover law enforcement was involved in making the crime possible. Police must use tactics such as coaxing, cajoling, trickery, or promises of friendship or reward – tactics that put even non-predisposed defendants at risk of committing the underlying offense. For more on inducement, click here.

Once a defendant establishes inducement by a preponderance (majority) of the evidence, the State must prove the defendant was predisposed to commit the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Predisposition means that the defendant was “ready and willing, without persuasion” to complete the crime, even without inducement. For more on predisposition, click here.

If the State proves a defendant was predisposed, a statutory entrapment defense fails even if law enforcement technically induced them to act unlawfully, so long as the police conduct did not constitute objective entrapment. But if inducement is established and predisposition is not, an entrapment claim will succeed (resulting in dismissal of all charges).

In Florida traveling to meet a minor cases (Fla. Stat. 847.0135(4)), statutory entrapment is quite commonly used as a defense. If someone was communicating with an actual minor (under age 18), such a defense is unavailable. In many cases, however, the “minor” was actually a police officer who was undercover.

Contrary to popular belief this does not automatically mean entrapment occurred, as police are permitted to engage in “sting operations.” However, statutory entrapment becomes a possible defense under such circumstances if the defendant was induced to act criminally, and the State cannot prove the defendant was predisposed to engage in sexual activity with minors.

But what kind of police conduct constitutes inducement? And when is a defendant considered (and not considered) “predisposed” in an online solicitation and traveling to meet a minor case? Let’s break it down by examining a major new case from Florida’s 2nd District Court of Appeal, DeMare v. State, 298 So. 3d 1269 (Fla. 2d. DCA 2020)

Major Case: DeMare v. State, 298 So. 3d 1269 (Fla. 2d. DCA 2020)

In DeMare, the defendant (DeMare) was charged with traveling to meet a minor for sex under Fla. Stat. 847.0135(4). Traveling to meet a minor is a second-degree felony (up to 15 years in prison and a $10,000 fine)

The charges arose from a law enforcement sting that used a popular dating website, “MeetMe.” DeMare responded to a profile of a woman named “Amber,” who purported to be 18 years of age. For four days, “Amber” flirted with DeMare as an adult.

But on day five of their conversations, “Amber” revealed that she was only 14 years old. When this occurred, DeMare immediately tried to end the relationship, noting that any sexual contact between the two of them would be illegal.

However, the undercover officer posing as “Amber” persisted, coaxed and cajoled DeMare into continuing to talk with her. She applied emotional pressure and used sexual teasing, eventually getting DeMare to travel to meet her in spite of his reservations about doing so.

DeMare was arrested upon arriving at the meet-up spot. He did not possess any drugs, condoms, and had no criminal record at the time involving sexual activity with minors. DeMare entered an open plea (pleading “straight up”), but reserved his right to appeal his motion to dismiss based on subjective entrapment – which the trial judge denied.

On appeal to Florida’s 2nd District Court of Appeal, DeMare reiterated his argument that law enforcement entrapped him. The court agreed and reversed the trial judge, ordering DeMare to be released from custody and dismissing the traveling to meet a minor charge brought against him.

The court examined the statutory entrapment framework, discussing both the inducement and predisposition prongs. The 2nd DCA noted that police (not DeMare) drove the conversation in a clearly sexual direction:

“Law enforcement took the lead in the conversation, initially suggested a sexual relationship between DeMare and a minor, coaxed and cajoled DeMare for more details, and challenged his reluctance by impugning his nerve and suggesting he was scared. … law enforcement’s persistent urging eventually overcame DeMare’s reluctance to commit or even describe sexual activity with a minor.”

Finding that inducement occurred, the court next addressed whether DeMare was predisposed to commit the offense (“ready and willing, without persuasion”). The 2nd DCA held that he was not, as he had no sexual history involving minors, responded to what he believed was an adult dating profile, and resisted the idea of sex with “Amber” once she disclosed her age:

“The burden therefore shifted to the State to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that DeMare ‘was awaiting any propitious opportunity or was ready and willing, without persuasion, to commit the offense.’ The State failed to meet this burden.”

“When DeMare contacted Amber on Meetme.com, he thought she was an adult and was led to believe he was speaking with an adult for four days. When law enforcement finally ‘admitted’ that Amber was only fourteen, DeMare immediately tried to end the relationship.”

“But Amber persuaded him to remain friends and then went about seducing and luring him into entertaining the idea of having a sexual relationship. DeMare repeatedly expressed an unwillingness to engage in sex with a minor. His reluctance to violate the law was overcome by law enforcement inducement.”

Finding both inducement and a lack of predisposition, the court then answered the final question as to whether DeMare was entrapped as a matter of law (question for judges), or if a jury should hear the evidence. The 2nd DCA concluded the proper remedy was pretrial dismissal:

“This leads us to the third question to be determined … whether the defense should be decided as a matter of law or submitted to the jury. … Because DeMare established that law enforcement induced him to commit the charged offense and the undisputed evidence failed to rebut the defense, DeMare’s subjective entrapment defense should have been decided as a matter of law. Accordingly, the trial court erred in denying DeMare’s motion to dismiss.”

DeMare has been discussed as one of the more defendant-friendly interpretations of Florida’s entrapment statute in recent decisions by District Courts of Appeal. The court emphasized that he had no history of sexual involvement with minors and responded to an adult’s profile. 

Moreover, his first reaction when finding out “Amber” was 14 was to cut off the relationship – not to pursue her sexually. However, this was overcome as a result of continued insistence by “Amber” that the two of them continue to talk – eventually leading to DeMare’s attempted meeting with her (and his arrest).

In sum, DeMare v. State, 298 So. 3d 1269 (Fla. 2d. DCA 2020) is a significant development in Florida case law on the issue of statutory entrapment in traveling to meet a minor cases. If someone was not predisposed to sexual activity with minors (e.g. no criminal history/showing clear reluctance) and was induced by police to act, they may have a strong entrapment claim.

If someone is charged with solicitation of a minor and traveling to meet a minor, it is critical to find experienced and trusted legal representation as soon as possible. This vital decision could make the difference in whether or not a person is subject to a lengthy prison term, hefty fines, and whether they are required to register as a sex offender for the rest of their life.

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