North FL’s Highest Court Finds NO Objective Entrapment in Online Solicitation Case

February 9, 2026 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense, Sex Crimes Social Share

Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal held that it is not inherently objective entrapment when law enforcement orchestrates a sting operation in which officers pose as minors or parents of minors and chat with users about unlawful sexual activity.

In Florida, entrapment is a total defense to criminal charges. If someone successfully argues that they were entrapped, the proper remedy is dismissal as a matter of law. Entrapment can be raised as a defense in a pretrial motion to dismiss, at trial itself, or both.

There are two forms of entrapment in Florida – and the difference between them is critical to know before someone pursues an entrapment defense to criminal charges. The first of these is objective (due process) entrapment, and the second is subjective (statutory) entrapment.

Objective entrapment occurs when law enforcement engages in such egregious (and potentially illegal) misconduct, that prosecuting a defendant for one or more offenses stemming from the police activity would violate their due process rights under the Florida and U.S. Constitutions. 

Objective entrapment is typically viewed as more “difficult” to prove than subjective entrapment, as courts are reluctant to find that law enforcement conduct “shocked the conscience” to such a degree that pretrial dismissal of the charge(s) is warranted as a matter of law. Dippolito v. State, 275 So.3d 653 (Fla 4th DCA 2019)

However, Florida’s courts have occasionally found that someone was objectively entrapped.

The following cases provide real-life examples of the type of law enforcement misconduct that rises to the level of objective entrapment:

• Law enforcement manufactures drugs 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))
• 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))

Unlike subjective entrapment, objective entrapment must be found by the trial judge. Thus, it is only to be raised in a pretrial motion to dismiss (or motion for judgment of acquittal) – not as an argument to the jury at trial.

Subjective entrapment is generally considered the “easier” form of entrapment to prove. It occurs when law enforcement induces a non-predisposed defendant to commit a crime – warranting the dismissal of the charge(s) against them.

Subjective entrapment can be argued in the form of a pretrial motion to dismiss (to be ruled on by the judge), a defense to the jury at trial, or both. For more, click here.

Inducement for entrapment purposes does not simply occur because law enforcement officers (or confidential informants) may have facilitated criminal activity while undercover. Inducement is a legal term referring to when police officers use impermissible tactics which risk that person will act unlawfully even if  they are not “ready and willing” to commit a crime. For more, click here.

If the defense proves inducement by a preponderance (majority) of the evidence, the State must prove the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime(s) beyond a reasonable doubt. This is defined as a defendant being “ready and willing, without persuasion” to commit the charged offenses even before the police inducement. For more on how this is proven, click here.

Occasionally, someone may be arrested for solicitation of a minor (Fla. Stat. 847.0135(3)) and traveling to meet a minor (Fla. Stat. 847.0135(4)) after being ensnared in a police sting. This is likely to occur when someone engages in sexual conversations with officers posing as minors online, then travels to meet them for the purpose of sexual activity, believing them to be a minor.

Sometimes, officers do not pose as a minor online during these stings – instead, they will pose as a parent or guardian of a minor. It is similarly unlawful to solicit a parent or guardian of a minor to engage in unlawful sexual activity with their child. For more on this, click here.

In the event that such charges arise from a sting in which law enforcement poses as a minor or parent/guardian of a minor, a defendant may contemplate whether to argue objective entrapment occurred. However, Florida’s courts have rejected objective entrapment claims in solicitation and traveling cases, unless police misconduct was especially egregious.

One major case in which such a ruling is State v. Murphy, 124 So.3d 323 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). Let’s take a look at Murphy and what it means for defendants arguing an entrapment defense in Florida.

KEY CASE: State v. Murphy, 124 So.3d 323 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)

In Murphy, the defendant (Murphy) was accused of soliciting a person believed to be a parent or guardian of a minor for sexual activity with the minor (third-degree felony, punishable by up to 5 years in prison), and traveling to meet a minor for sexual activity (second-degree felony, up to 15 years in prison).

At trial, it was revealed that Murphy responded to a Craigslist ad from the Tallahassee Police Department (TPD) reading: “Need a discreet male for young female—w4m (NE TLH).” When Murphy expressed interest by messaging the advertisement’s poster (the undercover officer), the following exchange occurred:

HUSTON: Hey man….she likes your pic…full disclosure…Im her dad…..she is 14, almost 15. older looking for her age. She had a bad first experience and looking for an older, patient experienced guy to show her how it should really be. I’m ju[s]t here to make sure some serial killer doesn’t come over. Let me know if you’re still interested and tell me about yourself. 

MURPHY: This has to be spam there’s no way this is real. If your real can I see a pic? 

HUSTON: its real and we need to talk a bit before i send you my 14 year old daughters pic

Murphy then exchanged personal information with the undercover officer (Huston), believing him to be the minor’s parent, before traveling to meet her for sex later that evening.

At trial, Murphy moved for a judgment of acquittal (MJOA) of the charges on multiple grounds:

• Ground #1: Murphy did not send any messages that constituted “solicitation” of the fictional parent of a minor to engage in sexual activity (with the minor)
• Ground #2: TPD’s conduct during the sting operation that ensnared him constituted objective entrapment, as law enforcement used sex as a “lure” to get him to act illegally

The trial judge denied Murphy’s MJOA request, and he was convicted. On appeal to the 1st DCA (Tallahassee and North Florida’s highest court), Murphy reiterated his arguments, urging the 1st DCA to reverse his convictions.

However, the 1st DCA disagreed with Murphy’s claims and affirmed his convictions. The 1st DCA first addressed the claim that Murphy did not solicit the fictional parent of a minor (in violation of Fla. Stat. 847.0135(3)(b)) to engage in sex with his daughter:

“Murphy argues that this evidence fails to show solicitation, luring, or enticement on his part in order to obtain the father’s consent. Rather, he argues, the evidence establishes that the father offered the teenage daughter for sex, and that he accepted the offer; he did not need to further obtain consent. Considering the evidence de novo, in the light most favorable to the State, we conclude the above-quoted email communication was sufficient for the jury to find Murphy solicited, lured, or enticed the father into letting him have sex with the 14–year–old girl. The email messages between the men reflect Murphy’s efforts to satisfy the father’s concerns and requirements for a “patient experienced guy”—demonstrating himself to be the right man for the job—in order to obtain the father’s consent.”

“Even if we agreed with Murphy that his statements did not rise to the level of solicitation, they decidedly constituted luring or enticing the father into allowing his 14–year–old daughter to participate in unlawful sexual activity. Finding the State’s evidence sufficient to sustain Murphy’s convictions, we affirm the trial court’s denial of Murphy’s motion for judgment of acquittal.”

The 1st DCA then turned to Murphy’s allegation that he was objectively entrapped, However, the 1st DCA rejected Murphy’s argument that TPD’s sting operation was so egregious that it violated his due process rights:

“Murphy challenges, on general principle, law enforcement’s use of sex—i.e., creating the possibility of a sexual encounter—as a lure. He argues that doing so preys on (what he describes as) the most sensitive of human frailties—the primal urge for sex—and preys on sensitive human emotions. Such law enforcement activity is egregious, he argues, and constitutes objective entrapment.”

“Law enforcement’s use of sex to advance an investigation has been held so egregious as to constitute a violation of due process, where the defendant was lured into criminal activity after the undercover government agent purposely established a sexual relationship with the defendant. See, e.g., Madera v. State, 943 So.2d 960, 962 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) … But that sort of “preying” on human frailties and emotions is not present in the instant case. Here, law enforcement was specifically targeting child sex predators, and we see nothing egregious or outrageous in undercover online investigations, like the one conducted here, designed to apprehend people bent on engaging in sexual activity with minors. To hold otherwise would be to tie the hands of law enforcement in combating this type of sex-related crime. Murphy has presented us no appellate court decision, or other persuasive authority, indicating that the government conduct at issue here offends any societal canons of decency and fairness. Accordingly, we reject his claim of objective entrapment.”

Essentially, the 1st DCA distinguished Murphy’s case from cases like Madera, as Murphy was predisposed to engage in sex with minors and no sexual relationship actually occurred between Murphy and law enforcement (or informants). Thus, he was not objectively entrapped.

In sum, State v. Murphy, 124 So.3d 323 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) is a significant development in Florida corpus of case law on the issues of entrapment and what constitutes a sexual solicitation of a minor (or person believed to be a minor) or of a parent or guardian of a minor (or person believed to be a parent or guardian of a minor). The 1st DCA held that:

• Murphy’s messages were designed to win over the fictional father (an undercover officer) of a 14-year-old girl to allow Murphy to engage in sex with her
• Because of this, even if he did not explicitly request and agree to particular sex act, Murphy’s course of conduct was clearly “solicitous” 
• Murphy was not objectively entrapped, as he was not induced to engage in an actual sexual relationship with police or informants – and online stings like TPD’s did not inherently qualify as objective entrapment
• Because the evidence in the record was sufficient to support Murphy’s guilt of both solicitation and traveling, his convictions were affirmed

Florida’s criminal defense community should take note, as State v. Murphy, 124 So.3d 323 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) offers a comprehensive explanation of Florida’s objective entrapment and online solicitation laws.

Note: In 2016, Murphy’s solicitation conviction was reversed by the Florida Supreme Court on double jeopardy grounds. However, the solicitation and entrapment analyses contained in the 1st DCA’s opinion were not disputed by the Florida Supreme Court. Thus, Murphy remains a major case on these issues.

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