Traveling to Meet a Minor That Was An Undercover Officer: Is It Entrapment?

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

In Florida, individuals may be charged with soliciting a minor online for sex, and then traveling to meet that minor for a sexual purpose. Often, felony charges of traveling to meet a minor are brought after someone arrives at an agreed-upon location, only to find that the ostensible minor was actually a law enforcement officer coordinating a sting operation.

A common question asked when this occurs is whether an entrapment defense can be raised. The answer is yes, but whether it is successful depends on the facts of an individual case. This article will discuss when an entrapment defense can succeed if an undercover police officer representing themselves as a minor arrests someone after they allegedly travel to meet the fictional minor for sex.

Fla. Stat. Section 847.0135(4) criminalizes traveling to meet a minor (or attempting to travel) for the purpose of sexual activity. For someone to be found guilty of traveling to meet a minor for sexual activity, the following must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt: 

• The defendant knowingly used a computer online service, Internet service, local bulletin board service, device capable of electronic data storage or transmission to contact the victim

• The victim was a child or a person the defendant believed to be a child
• During that contact, the defendant seduced, solicited, lured, or enticed a minor, or attempted to do so, to commit any illegal sexual act
• The defendant then traveled, attempted to travel, caused another to travel, attempted to cause another to travel within Florida for the purpose of unlawful sexual conduct with the child or person believed to be a child

Traveling to meet a minor is a third-degree felony, punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine. This is the case regardless of whether it is an actual minor, or if someone was ensnared in a law enforcement sting.

When the latter situation arises, an entrapment defense may be utilized. Two types of entrapment exist under Florida law, either of which can be argued depending on the facts of a case.

It is a common misconception that any time police perform a sting operation that results in a defendant committing a crime, this is entrapment. This is not the case, as Florida law authorizes such operations, provided that the law enforcement officers do not conduct themselves in a way that is constitutionally and legally permissible.

Types of Entrapment

There are two types of entrapment recognized under Florida law that can be argued in cases where someone is arrested after traveling to meet a fictional minor:

• Objective entrapment (official misconduct)
• Subjective entrapment (Fla. Stat. Section 777.201)

Objective entrapment occurs when the government “supplies all of the instrumentalities of a crime, controls all of its aspects, and teaches the intended target how to commit the crime for the purpose of arresting him.” State v. Finno, 643 So. 2d 1166 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). 

When someone has been objectively entrapped, the proper remedy is the dismissal of all charges, regardless of whether the offenses were committed. State v. Taylor, 784 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). An objective entrapment analysis is independent of whether the charged person was predisposed to act criminally. It is a question of whether officers violated the defendant’s due process rights under Article I, Section 9 of the Florida Constitution.

In traveling to meet a minor cases, subjective entrapment is more commonly argued. Under Fla. Stat. Section 777.201 and the Florida Supreme Court’s ruling in Munoz v. State, two things must be established for criminal charges against a defendant to be dismissed on entrapment grounds:

• Law enforcement induced the defendant to commit the allegedly illegal act that produced his arrest
• The defendant was not predisposed to commit the act, but did anyway as a result of law enforcement intervention

Subjective entrapment differs from objective entrapment in two key ways: 1) police officers do not have to “supply all of the instrumentalities of a crime” and control all its aspects, and 2) the evaluation is focused on the defendant’s state of mind in addition to law enforcement conduct.

If a subjective entrapment defense is raised under Fla. Stat. Section 777.201, the defendant must first prove the law enforcement officer who represented themselves to be a minor induced them to solicit and travel to meet the fictional minor. Inducement must be shown by a preponderance of the evidence.

However, inducement does not mean that “but for” the law enforcement officer’s contact with the defendant, the alleged crimes would not have occurred. For inducement to be proven for the purpose of satisfying the entrapment statute, the police conduct must go beyond providing an opportunity for the defendant to act. Some examples of inducement include:

• Coaxing, cajoling, or otherwise manipulating the defendant to solicit or travel
• Flattery, emotional manipulation, or appeals to sympathy
• Deliberately overcoming reluctance or hesitation by the defendant
• Promises of benefits such as money or affection

Any such activity by law enforcement, if proven by a preponderance (majority) of the evidence, will satisfy the inducement prong of the entrapment test under Fla. Stat. Section 777.201. Gennette v. State, 124 So.3d 273 (Fla 1st DCA 2013). 

Once inducement is established, the State must prove that the defendant was predisposed to commit the alleged crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Predisposition is defined as “a state of mind which inclines a person to commit a crime, given the opportunity, without persuasion.”

Munoz v. State, 629 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 1993). In considering whether a defendant was predisposed to commit the alleged offense, the court may consider the following:

• Whether the defendant initiated the contact
• Whether the defendant quickly or enthusiastically agreed to a sexual rendezvous with the fictional minor
• Defendant’s conduct during the chats with the fictional minor
• Preparedness or planning

If a defendant is initially reluctant or refuses to solicit or travel, this is evidence against predisposition. If law enforcement is unable to prove predisposition beyond a reasonable doubt and inducement has been established by a preponderance of the evidence, the defendant is entitled to the dismissal of the charges under Munoz.

In sum, whether traveling to meet a minor that ended up being an undercover officer constitutes “entrapment” depends on the facts of the case. If officers induce a non-predisposed defendant to travel by coaxing, cajoling, flattering, threatening, or promising money or affection, an entrapment defense may succeed. 

If a defendant is found to have been predisposed to act, or law enforcement is found not to have done any more than give them an “opportunity to act,” a charge for traveling to meet a minor for sex is likely to be upheld by the trial court. This is despite the fact that the alleged minor was actually a police officer engaged in a sting. Finding an experienced, aggressive defense attorney can significantly improve the chances of successfully bringing an entrapment defense.

If someone is arrested and formally charged in Florida with traveling to meet a minor and seeks to raise an 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 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