Officer Misrepresenting Age in Sting Is NOT Entrapment: North Florida’s Highest Court

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

Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal held that just because an undercover officer lied about their age in a traveling to meet a minor police sting, this did not mean the defendant was entrapped.

In Florida, entrapment is a well-known but frequently misunderstood defense. Entrapment occurs when government agents (e.g. police) impermissibly induce a defendant to commit a crime that would not have otherwise occurred. There are two types of entrapment in Florida that can be argued – objective and subjective entrapment. 

There are critical differences between these, which are important to understand. Objective entrapment focuses on law enforcement conduct that is so egregious, it violates the due process rights of a defendant – requiring dismissal of charges because prosecuting the defendant would be fundamentally unjust. Dippolito v. State, 275 So.3d 653 (Fla 4th DCA 2019) 

Note: An entrapment defense in Florida can be raised before trial (e.g. in a pretrial motion to dismiss), at trial itself, or both. Ayala v. State, 232 So.3d 517 (Fla. 2d. DCA 2017) 

Objective entrapment is not as frequently argued, as it is usually more difficult to prove than subjective entrapment. Examples of objective entrapment have included:

• 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))
• Law enforcement officers or confidential informants engaging in a sexual relationship with the defendant to convince them to commit the crime (Madera v. State, 943 So.2d 960 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006))

The more common entrapment defense in Florida is subjective entrapment, codified by Munoz v. State, 629 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 1993) and Fla. Stat. 777.201. There are two “prongs” of the subjective entrapment defense – inducement and predisposition. 

If a defendant is arguing subjective entrapment occurred (also known as statutory entrapment), they must first establish by a preponderance (majority) of the evidence that they were induced to commit the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Inducement tactics by police may include:

• Coaxing, cajoling, or trickery (e.g. “Please, please do it…”)
• Harassment or coercion (e.g. continuously calling/texting the defendant to try to get them to act criminally)
• Promises of friendship or monetary reward (e.g. “I’ll pay you $1,000 if you…”)

Important: If law enforcement merely gives someone the opportunity to commit the crime (e.g. creates a sting operation that leads to a defendant’s arrest), this is not considered inducement automatically. Gennette v. State, 124 So.3d 273 (Fla 1st DCA 2013)

One of the most common types of cases where entrapment is argued is law enforcement sting operations in which officers pretend to be minors online (e.g. on dating apps), leading to the arrest of defendants for charges such as: 

• Traveling to meet a minor under Fla. Stat. 847.0135(4) (if the defendant agrees to meet up with the fictional minor for sexual activity and travels or attempts to travel for this purpose)
• Online solicitation of a minor (or person believed to be a minor) under Fla. Stat. 847.0135(3)
• Unlawful use of a two-way communications device (Fla. Stat. 934.215)
• Attempted lewd battery (under certain circumstances)

In some cases, this involves law enforcement officers misrepresenting their age in one of the following ways:

• Creating an online profile purporting to be a minor 
• Creating a profile as an adult, then divulging that they are “actually a minor” (under 18) during their online chat with a defendant

But is a police officer misrepresenting their age during a sting operation considered inducement for purposes of proving that entrapment occurred? The answer, according to Tallahassee and North Florida’s highest court, is no.

Let’s take a look at Cantrell v. State, 132 So.3d 931 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) and what it means for arguing subjective entrapment in Florida.

KEY CASE: Cantrell v. State, 132 So.3d 931 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)

In Cantrell, the defendant (Cantrell) responded to a Craigslist ad generated by a Tallahassee police officer that read: “Hot Fresh Latina Lookn 4 1 Nighter—w4m [woman looking for man] (NE Tally).” Cantrell responded that he was interested, and the following exchange occurred between the officer and Cantrell via email:

OFFICER: u down wit a yunger Latina, hit me bk bb, lets tlk. 

DEFENDANT: for sure…pics? 

OFFICER: u ain’t gettin a pic unless we decide we wanna meet up, I’m almost 15 and if u cool with that hit me bk and we can move to text.

Ultimately,Cantrell traveled to meet the undercover officer he believed to be a 15-year-old minor for sex and was arrested. He was convicted of solicitation of a minor under Fla. Stat. 847.0135(3) and traveling to meet a minor under Fla. Stat. 847.0135(4) (the solicitation conviction was later tossed by the Florida Supreme Court on double jeopardy grounds).

On appeal, Cantrell advanced a novel argument that he was entrapped as a matter of law because the police officer misrepresented her age. 

Cantrell noted that when the officer signed up for Craigslist, she had to check a box saying she was over 18. Cantrell argued that because the officer acknowledged this (and she was actually an adult), the conversation was lawful when he entered into it. 

Cantrell asserted that because the officer made a fraudulent representation of her age both to him and to Craigslist, he was improperly induced as a matter of law – requiring the reversal of his conviction because predisposition could not be proven.

However, Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal (Tallahassee and North Florida’s highest court) rejected Cantrell’s argument. The 1st DCA wrote: 

“The Appellant contends that the officer’s fraudulent misrepresentation about her age constituted subjective entrapment as a matter of law, because participation in the Craigslist site requires a person to acknowledge, by checking a box, that he or she is 18 or over, and thus the exchange was lawful when he entered into it and law enforcement improperly induced him into interacting with a purported minor. We disagree.”

“Inducement to engage in unlawful conduct is not shown by evidence that law enforcement made a fraudulent representation; there must be evidence that the fraudulent representation created ‘a substantial risk that an otherwise law-abiding citizen would commit an offense.’ … A mere invitation under false pretenses is not synonymous with inducement. As the First Circuit Court of Appeal stated in United States v. Gifford, 17 F.3d 462, 468 (1st Cir. 1994), ‘[i]nducement can be found only when the government has ventured beyond a simple offer, say, by pleading with a defendant.’ In our case, after the officer stated the purported minor’s age, the appellant participated enthusiastically in their exchange, suggested that they meet as soon as possible, and did not show any hesitation.”

Essentially, the 1st DCA found that the officer’s fraudulent representation of her age (both to Cantrell and to Craigslist) could not support a subjective entrapment defense. Because the officer merely extended “an invitation” for Cantrell to act criminally (without use of coaxing, cajoling or other prohibited tactics) – he was not impermissible induced as a matter of law.

In sum, Cantrell v. State, 132 So.3d 931 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) is a significant development in Florida case law on the issue of entrapment stemming from police sting operations (particularly in traveling to meet a minor and solicitation of a minor cases).

The 1st DCA held that the fact that the officer “fraudulently misrepresented” her age to Cantrell and Craigslist did not automatically mean Cantrell was entrapped. The relevant inquiry was not whether the officer lied about her age – but whether the officer used impermissible “inducement” tactics on top of claiming she was a minor to get Cantrell to act criminally.

As Cantrell “participated enthusiastically” in a sexual exchange with someone he believed to be a minor and later traveled to meet them for sex, the 1st DCA found he was not entrapped. This ruling is important to understand for Florida defense attorneys and defendants who wish to argue entrapment in solicitation and traveling-related cases arising from police stings. 

If someone wishes to explore an entrapment defense in a criminal case, it is critical to find experienced and trusted legal representation as soon as possible if someone is charged with an offense involving a child victim. 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