What is Inducement for Entrapment Purposes in Florida?

June 9, 2025 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense Social Share

In Florida, entrapment can potentially be used as a defense to criminal charges if an individual only committed a crime due to government action. To argue entrapment under Fla. Stat. Section 777.201, someone must establish that they were induced by law enforcement to act illegally, and they were not predisposed to commit the crime with which they are charged.

Inducement is often thought of simply as government action that produced the crime someone committed. A common example is an undercover officer creating an online profile posing as a minor, which may result in someone soliciting the “minor” for sex and traveling to meet them before being arrested.

But just because government action created the opportunity to commit a crime, does not mean the government action is automatically considered inducement under the law. This article will explain when law enforcement conduct rises to the level of inducement for the purposes of an entrapment defense under 777.201.

Florida law allows for two types of entrapment claims to be made: objective and subjective. Objective entrapment may be argued when police misconduct is so egregious that it violates a defendant’s due process rights. 

Objective entrapment occurs when law enforcement “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). Examples may include:

• An undercover officer repeatedly begs a reluctant man to sell him drugs, offering money for the man’s sick child until he finally agrees
• A detective poses as a minor online and aggressively pressures the defendant daily for weeks to meet, despite multiple refusals
• Police supply a fake bomb, instruct a suspect with no prior criminal history on how to use it, then arrest him as he follows their plan
• Officers set up a fake charity and coax an unemployed single mom to commit food stamp fraud by offering her a high-paying job afterward

However, whether law enforcement conduct constituted inducement is most commonly debated when subjective entrapment is being argued. Under Fla. Stat. Section 777.201 (Florida’s entrapment law) and Munoz v. State, 629 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 1993), entrapment also occurs when a government agent (law enforcement) induces a non-predisposed defendant to commit a crime, who otherwise would not have committed it. 

For a defendant to successfully argue they were subjectively entrapped, the following must occur:

• The defendant must first prove by a preponderance (majority) of the evidence that law enforcement impermissibly induced them to act
• If this is successful, the burden shifts to the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was predisposed to commit the underlying crime

Under Florida law, predisposition is defined as readiness and willingness to commit the charged criminal act, without persuasion. Ready acquiescence to suggested criminal activity can be used as proof of predisposition – along with a defendant’s criminal history and reputation. State v. Harper, 254 So.3d 479 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)

However, predisposition only becomes an issue if law enforcement is found to have used impermissible tactics that rise to the level of inducement under Section 777.201. Those tactics include:

• Coaxing and cajoling someone to try to get them to act criminally
• Attempting to persuade someone to act criminally despite their skepticism or opposition
• Threats
• Fraudulent representations (such as promises of reward)
• Coercion or harassment
• Pleased based on need, sympathy, or friendship

Quoting the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Jacobson v. United States, Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal’s Panebianco decision noted that inducement qualifies as government conduct that persuades a person to turn from “a righteous path to an iniquitous one.” State v. Panebianco, 370 So.3d 345 (Fla. 2d. DCA 2023)

In State v. Liptak, the Supreme Court of Florida clarified that the inducement for entrapment purposes is distinguishable from merely “providing an opportunity” for someone to criminally act that they seize upon. Inducement requires law enforcement conduct to lead to the commission of a crime by someone who otherwise would not have committed it. State v. Liptak, 277 So.2d 19 (1973)

Put alternatively, inducement and predisposition tend to go hand-in-hand. If someone is not predisposed (ready and willing) to commit a crime as soon as they learn of an opportunity, law enforcement may resort to prohibited tactics like coercion or harassment to make this happen. In such cases, inducement is often the product of someone’s lack of predisposition.

In sum, inducement is the first prong of Florida’s two-prong entrapment test. Inducement goes beyond law enforcement presenting an opportunity for someone to commit a crime – it involves the use of prohibited tactics such as coaxing, cajoling, persuasion or coercion to ensure someone commits a particular offense.

If someone argues entrapment occurred under Fla. Stat. Section 777.201, they must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that law enforcement induced them to act criminally. This is done by showing they relied upon tactics that created a substantial risk that someone other than a predisposed defendant would commit the crime. 

When inducement is proven by a preponderance of the evidence, the State must then establish a defendant was predisposed to commit the charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt. If the State fails to do so, Section 777.201 provides that the defendant cannot be convicted of the charged offense(s).

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 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