Major Florida Court Dismisses Drug Charges On Objective Entrapment Grounds

December 4, 2025 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense, Drug Charges Social Share

Florida’s 4th District Court dismissed drug charges against a defendant after finding he was ‘objectively entrapped’ by a confidential informant.

In Florida, entrapment is a well-known defense to various criminal charges. It occurs when a government agent uses impermissible methods to induce a defendant to commit a crime who would not have otherwise done so. This can be a law enforcement officer (police) or another government agent such as a confidential informant.

There are two types of entrapment in Florida – objective entrapment and subjective entrapment. Subjective entrapment (also known as statutory entrapment) is the more commonly argued of the two, and is codified in Munoz v. State, 629 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 1993) and Fla. Stat. 777.201. 

Subjective entrapment occurs when government agents (e.g. police) induce a defendant who was not predisposed to act criminally to commit the underlying offense. The first step of a subjective entrapment analysis requires the defendant to prove that the State induced them to act unlawfully by a preponderance (majority) of the evidence.

Government 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
• Promises of friendship with the defendant 
• Promises of monetary reward

To learn more about what qualifies as inducement for purposes of proving subjective entrapment in Florida, click here.

If a defendant proves by a preponderance of the evidence that they were improperly induced to act, the State must establish that they were predisposed to act unlawfully beyond a reasonable doubt to avoid the dismissal of the charges. If the State fails to do so, the defendant may not be convicted.

Predisposition is defined as a defendant being “ready and willing, without persuasion” to commit the underlying crime. For more on predisposition in subjective entrapment cases, click here.

The other form of entrapment is objective entrapment. Objective entrapment occurs when government misconduct is so egregious that it violates the defendant’s due process rights – making the prosecution fundamentally unjust even if the defendant is technically guilty. 

Objective entrapment is less commonly argued, as it is considered more difficult to prove. Since law enforcement officers are permitted to perform sting operations, objective entrapment will only be found if the misconduct is so egregious that it violated a defendant’s constitutional rights. Dippolito v. State, 275 So.3d 653 (Fla 4th DCA 2019).

Examples may 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))
• Undercover law enforcement threatens to kill or seriously injure someone if they do not commit a crime, then arrests them for doing so
• Law enforcement officers or confidential informants engaging in a sexual relationship with the defendant to convince them to commit the crime

Unlike subjective entrapment cases, the predisposition of a suspect is irrelevant in an objective entrapment analysis. The focus is on whether government misconduct violated the defendant’s due process rights. Curry v. State, 876 So.2d 29, 30 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)

Even though objective entrapment arguments are usually not as likely to succeed as subjective entrapment claims, Florida’s courts will occasionally dismiss charges against a defendant on the grounds that they were objectively entrapped. 

This is exactly what happened in Madera v. State, 943 So.2d 960 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). Let’s break down Madera and what it means for entrapment law in Florida.

KEY CASE: Madera v. State, 943 So.2d 960 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)

In Madera, the defendant (Madera) was charged with a variety of drug offenses. He filed a motion to dismiss before trial on the grounds that he was objectively entrapped as a matter of law. Because the trial court denied the motion, he entered a no contest plea to all the charges and appealed to the 4th DCA. 

Before the charged offenses allegedly were committed, Madera had no criminal history and was in his 30s when he was approached by a confidential informant. The defendant took a romantic interest in the confidential informant (working with the police in a drug sting), and she led him to believe the feelings were mutual.

The CI asked Madera if he knew where she could buy drugs or if he could obtain drugs for her. Madera repeatedly told her he did not use illicit drugs and had no interest in doing so. He also informed her that he did not know anyone who sold drugs.

The CI made promises of a sexual relationship to Madera if he would help her find drugs. She told Madera she had cancer and that she needed drugs to cope with the pain. However, the CI was actually a convicted drug trafficker working with police on similar transactions with many other individuals (other than Madera).

Eventually, Madera sought out drugs to purchase for the CI and was arrested for doing so. On appeal to the 4th DCA, Madera argued his motion to dismiss on objective entrapment grounds was wrongly denied by the trial judge. The court agreed with Madera and tossed the charges against him, ordering him to be released from custody. 

Though the State attempted to assert Madera was predisposed to commit the underlying drug offenses, the 4th DCA quickly refuted this:

“The State argues that because it denied that the Defendant lacked a predisposition to commit the crime, a material issue of fact was in dispute and thus, the motion was properly denied.  This argument, however, ignores the distinction between a subjective and objective theory of entrapment. In the former, a predisposition to commit the crime will defeat the affirmative defense of entrapment. In the latter, predisposition is not an issue. Rather, the question is whether the conduct of law enforcement was so egregious as to violate the due process rights of the defendant.”

Analogizing Madera’s case to another recent case, Curry v. State, 876 So.2d 29, 30 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), the court found that Madera had been objectively entrapped by the CI:

“Similarly, in this case, there would have been no crime without the CI’s prodding and improper conduct. At the time, the Defendant was gainfully employed at a lawful occupation, had no prior criminal history, and was not even suspected of criminal activity. The CI was used here, not to detect crime, but to manufacture it. Thus, as in Curry, we find that the Defendant’s due process rights were violated by this egregious conduct and that he was objectively entrapped as a matter of law.”

In sum, Madera v. State, 943 So.2d 960 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) is a significant development in Florida’s corpus of case law on the issue of objective entrapment.

Florida’s 4th District Court of Appeal (South Florida area) held that Madera had been objectively entrapped by a confidential informant (working for law enforcement) because:

• Madera had no criminal history prior to the charged crimes
• Madera was not even suspected of criminal activity prior to being approached by the confidential informant
• Madera did not have predisposition to commit drug offenses
• Madera only acted because the CI promised him sexual favors and told him he would be helping her through her cancer battle if he purchased the drugs

Florida defense attorneys and defendants should be aware of Madera v. State, 943 So.2d 960 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). If objective entrapment is suspected to have occurred following an arrest that stemmed from a police sting, Madera may provide support for a pretrial motion to dismiss, motion for judgment of acquittal (MJOA), or grounds for an appeal.

If someone wishes to argue entrapment, 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