If you've watched the news even for 2 minutes in the past days you have seen the Polk County Sheriff bragging that he caught 15 suspected sex offenders through an undercover sting. This is basically Polk County having a Dateline: To Catch a Predator day.
The cops set up fake ads on Craigslist illiciting "advice" and "guidance" for underage girls and waited for responses. Then the suspects and the cops emailed back and forth deciding on the details of the sexual encounters. 15 men actually made the drive to the house to have sex with the children and some cases the mother too. Sick. I am in no way condoning the behavior of the men, yet I'm told so often by my clients that they were ENTRAPED that I think I should explain the defense. IT RARELY WORKS. This exact issue has been litigated and in Florida and the courts say it is not. See Bist v. State 5th DCA, April 9, 2010.
It MAYBE entrapment - if the defendant's can prove they had no prior ideas to commit this type of crime AND the government in some way persauded them to commit the crime, then yes. However, the men were emailing back and forth with the "children". The answer really depends on what was said in those emails.
In Florida, although the entrapment statute focuses more on the conduct of the accused person, the court can also look at the conduct of the police. For example, if the police use threats of violence, in order for someone to commit the crime, that could be entrapment and warrant a dismissal.
But in focusing on the acts of a person's predisposition to commit a crime, the burden is on the accused to prove he had no intention of committing the crime but for the actions of the police. That is - he never would have thought of it if the police hadn't given him the opportunity.
In Glosson v. State, the cop offered a confidential informant 10% of everything that was seized in a drug bust. The courts said this was entrapment because the CI had a significant monetary interest (ie: he was getting paid) to make up crimes and slant his testimony.
So in this case, the cops were offering fake children and enticing the men with sex. None of these men were registered sex offenders. The case against them really stands on the emails. And you can bet, their computers were seized so if there's anything else illegal on the computers the defendant's will have a rough time with an entrapment defense. If the cops made no threats, plays for sympathy, or offers of money to lure these men out to the house, it probably is not entrapment.
