Major Florida Court Says Jury Must Decide Entrapment in Traveling to Meet a Minor Case

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

A decision from a major Florida court reverses a trial judge’s finding of entrapment in a traveling to meet a minor case. The court ruled it was an issue for the jury to decide.

In Florida, traveling to meet a minor (Fla. Stat. 847.0135(4)) is a very serious offense. It is a second-degree felony, punishable by up to 15 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. Traveling to meet a minor for the purpose of unlawful sexual activity is an especially common charge when law enforcement conducts sting operations posing as minors.

If someone is arrested and charged for traveling to meet a minor that was actually an undercover police officer, a potential defense is entrapment. There are two types of entrapment in Florida: objective (due process) entrapment and subjective (statutory) entrapment. Dippolito v. State, 275 So.3d 653 (Fla 4th DCA 2019). 

Objective entrapment occurs when police conduct is so egregious that it “shocks the conscience,” and proceeding with a future prosecution would violate the defendant’s due process rights. Some examples of when “objective entrapment” may occur include:

• Police manufacture and sell illegal drugs with the intent of arresting someone when they buy them
• Police send child pornography to someone in the mail or online as part of a sting operation
• Undercover law enforcement threatens to kill or seriously injure someone if they do not commit a crime, then arrests that person for committing it

Because objective entrapment is difficult to prove, especially in traveling to meet a minor cases (as law enforcement sting operations are legal), statutory entrapment is usually argued. This is codified Fla. Stat. Section 777.201), which creates a two-prong test to determine whether police impermissibly entrapped a defendant.

Note: Motions to dismiss based on entrapment are often raised by a defendant before trial – but if the motion is denied by the trial judge, a statutory entrapment defense can still be relied upon at trial. 

If a defendant argues statutory entrapment occurred, they must first prove by a preponderance (majority) of the evidence that police improperly induced them to commit the crime. Inducement does not simply occur if undercover police are running a sting operation – this requires reliance upon tactics that put a non-predisposed defendant at risk of committing the charged offense.

Examples of improper inducement by undercover law enforcement in a traveling to meet a minor case may include (Gennette v. State, 124 So.3d 273 (Fla 1st DCA 2013)):

• Coaxing, cajoling, or trickery (e.g. telling someone they’re “scared” or impugning their manhood) 
• Promises of friendship or reward (e.g. promising money to someone if they travel) 
• Threats, coercion, or harassment (e.g. “spamming” someone who disengaged until they begin texting again/agree to travel)

If the defendant establishes inducement occurred by a preponderance of the evidence, the burden shifts to the State to prove the defendant was predisposed to commit the offense (e.g. traveling to meet a minor) beyond a reasonable doubt. This means the defendant was “ready and willing, without persuasion” to commit the crime – even in the absence of inducement.

For more on what qualifies as inducement under Florida’s entrapment statute, click here. For more on predisposition, click here.

In certain cases, a trial judge may grant a pretrial motion to dismiss on statutory entrapment grounds. This is the proper outcome if the defendant proves inducement, and the State cannot establish predisposition. 

But occasionally, an appeals court may reverse the trial court’s finding and conclude that the jury (rather than the trial judge) should have decided if entrapment occurred. That’s exactly what happened in State v. Lopez-Garcia, 356 So. 3d 857 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022). Let’s break it down.

Major Entrapment Case: State v. Lopez-Garcia, 356 So. 3d 857 (Fla. 2d. DCA 2022)

In Lopez-Garcia, the defendant (Lopez-Garcia) was arrested and charged with traveling to meet a minor, online solicitation of a minor, unlawful use of a two-way communications device, and attempted lewd battery on a minor. The “minor” was actually an undercover police officer.

Lopez-Garcia filed a pretrial motion to dismiss on the grounds that he was statutorily entrapped (per Fla. Stat. 777.201). Lopez-Garcia, who was 20 at the time, had been using a dating platform when he “liked” the profile of a 21-year-old by the name of “Ashlie.”

Lopez-Garcia and “Ashlie” began to message each other. The following day, “Ashlie” disclosed she was actually a minor (14 years old). Lopez-Garcia immediately indicated to  “Ashlie” this meant the two of them could not meet. “Ashlie,” however, told Lopez-Garcia that she simply wanted to “have fun” and “hang out.”

Lopez-Garcia tried to determine the meaning of this reply, to which “Ashlie” responded by indicating she was “inexperienced” and wanted an “older guy.” Lopez-Garcia then asked “Ashlie” what she “wanted to do.” Lopez-Garcia also requested pictures from her (though did not specifically request sexual images), and said he’d clarify his intentions after receiving them.

The conversation began “Ashlie” then began to turn more explicit, with Lopez-Garcia indicating willingness to meet for sexual activity. This culminated in additional pictures being exchanged between the two, including images of a lewd nature sent by Lopez-Garcia to the fictional minor. 

Ultimately, Lopez-Garcia traveled to meet “Ashlie” and was arrested immediately, as it was an undercover officer. Lopez-Garcia filed a pretrial motion to dismiss on statutory entrapment grounds (Fla. Stat. 777.201), arguing the following:

• He was induced to commit the crime by the officer, who continued to turn the chats in a sexual direction after he said he would not meet her – and asked him for images of him despite knowing he was “naked”
• He was not predisposed to commit the offense, as he’d swiped on what he believed to be a 21-year-old’s profile (adult), and told “Ashlie” after finding out she was 14 that they could not meet

The trial court agreed with Lopez-Garcia and dismissed the charges against him, finding that law enforcement entrapped Lopez-Garcia via improper inducement, and that he was not predisposed to commit the crimes. The court noted Lopez-Garcia’s reluctance to meet up with “Ashlie” and his lack of a criminal record involving sex offenses.

However, Florida’s 2nd District Court of Appeal (Greater Tampa area) reversed the trial court’s pretrial dismissal of the charges – ruling that this should have been a question for the jury. The court held that Lopez-Garcia had failed to prove lack of predisposition, contradicting the finding of the trial judge.

The 2nd DCA conceded that although inducement may have occurred, particularly when the undercover officer asked Lopez-Garcia for images of himself (despite seemingly knowing he was naked), the officer did not explicitly request nude pictures. Moreover, no threats or coercion were used. The 2nd DCA held on the inducement issue:

“Because a factual issue remained as to the meaning of many of the statements made by the officer and Lopez-Garcia during their text communications, Lopez-Garcia has not met his burden of establishing inducement as a matter of law that would entitle him to a dismissal of the charges without the question being presented to a jury.”

The court then turned to a predisposition analysis. The 2nd DCA noted that someone’s lack of a history involving sex crimes against minors can serve as an initial rebuttal of predisposition. But in Lopez-Garcia’s case, the court said text messages with “Ashlie” were independent proof he was predisposed to commit the charged offenses:

“Although Lopez-Garcia met his initial burden of establishing a lack of predisposition to commit the charged offenses by showing that he had never been investigated for or charged with such offenses in the past … [A]fter the burden shifted to the State, it rebutted his lack of predisposition by presenting evidence of Lopez-Garcia’s conduct during the text communications between himself and the undercover officer.”

The 2nd DCA got specific about the State’s evidence, noting:

“Here, the State presented evidence that after he learned that “Ashlie” was fourteen years old, Lopez-Garcia asked her several times to send nude photos of herself, repeatedly steered the conversation in a sexual direction—often using vulgar, explicit language—and sent her what were arguably unsolicited penis photos.”

“In presenting this evidence, the State created an issue of fact as to whether Lopez-Garcia was predisposed to commit the charged offenses independent of any action by the undercover officer. As such, dismissal was improper, and the issue of predisposition should have been resolved by the jury.”

Though the court did not rule that Lopez-Garcia was not entrapped, it did decide that his case should not have been dismissed before trial, by the judge as a matter of law. Instead, a jury should have heard the arguments and rendered a verdict based on their findings of whether Lopez-Garcia was entrapped.

Critics of Lopez-Garcia are likely to argue that given his lack of criminal history and reluctance to meet “Ashlie” after she revealed her age, the State could not prove predisposition beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, the court seemingly conceded that the undercover officer knew Lopez-Garcia was likely nude and solicited images from him (while posing as a minor).

Conversely, proponents of the ruling are likely to counter with the fact that Lopez-Garcia turned the conversation sexual even after learning “Ashlie’s” age – as well as argue that the officer did not clearly employ “inducement” tactics. 

In sum, State v. Lopez-Garcia, 356 So. 3d 857 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022) is a major ruling by a Florida appellate court on entrapment in traveling to meet a minor and solicitation of a minor cases. Prosecutors and defense attorneys in Florida are likely to consider this ruling when making entrapment arguments in future traveling and solicitation of a minor cases.

If someone is charged with solicitation of a minor or 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