.png)
Online Solicitation Defense
Most people charged under Florida Statute § 847.0135 never spoke to a minor at all. They spoke to a detective. Central Florida law enforcement agencies regularly run undercover operations on dating apps, social platforms, and classified sites, posing as minors — or as parents offering access to them — and the arrests come in waves, often with multi-agency press conferences. The charges are serious felonies, the evidence is a chat log the State believes is airtight, and the defense is far more available than most defendants are told: these cases raise genuine issues of entrapment, intent, and fantasy versus plan.
If you have been arrested in one of these operations — or received a knock-and-talk visit — say nothing and call or text 407-846-8008.
The Charges
• Solicitation of a minor — § 847.0135(3). Using a computer service, app, or electronic device to seduce, solicit, lure, or entice a child — or a person believed to be a child — to engage in unlawful sexual conduct. A third-degree felony (up to 5 years), which becomes a second-degree felony (up to 15 years) if the defendant misrepresented his or her age. Soliciting a parent or guardian to consent to a child's participation is charged the same way.
• Traveling to meet a minor — § 847.0135(4). Traveling any distance — within Florida, into it, or out of it — to meet someone solicited online for unlawful sexual conduct. A second-degree felony. “The minor” never has to exist; the statute expressly covers persons believed to be minors.
• Separate counts for separate chats. The statute says each separate use of a computer service may be charged as a separate offense — so a week of conversation can be charged as many felonies, not one.
• Electronic exhibition — § 847.0135(5). Live lewd exhibition over a connection to a viewer the defendant knows or should know is under 16. Second-degree felony for adults.
Convictions under subsections (3), (4), and (5) are qualifying offenses for sex offender registration. For defendants with a prior qualifying sex-offense conviction, § 794.0116 adds a 10-year mandatory minimum.
Entrapment: The Defense the State Fears in These Cases
Florida recognizes two forms of entrapment, and sting cases implicate both:
• Subjective entrapment asks whether law enforcement induced the crime and whether the defendant was predisposed to commit it before the government showed up. Who raised sex first? Who steered the conversation to age? Who persisted after hesitation or attempts to disengage? In many chat logs, the honest answer is: the detective.
• Objective entrapment asks whether police conduct was so egregious that due process bars conviction — a doctrine Florida courts have actually applied in outrageous sting scenarios.
Entrapment is not a technicality; it is a recognized defense that has won acquittals and dismissals in Florida sting prosecutions. It requires the complete, unedited chat records — not the excerpts in the arrest affidavit — and a lawyer who knows how these operations are scripted.
Other Battlegrounds
• Intent and the “fantasy” issue. The State must prove the defendant actually intended illegal conduct with a real minor — not role-play in an adults-only space. Where the profile was on an 18+ platform and the age narrative was contradictory, intent is a jury question.
• “Believed to be a child.” What the defendant actually believed is an element. Sarcasm, disbelief expressed in the chat, and platform context all matter.
• Identity. The State must prove who was typing. Shared devices and accounts are real issues.
• Count stacking. Separate-use charging multiplies exposure; merging and double-jeopardy challenges can cut a case down to size.
• Statements at arrest. Sting arrests are engineered for a roadside confession. Suppression of those statements changes everything.
What To Expect After a Sting Arrest
These cases move fast and publicly. Expect a high initial bond, pretrial release conditions barring internet and minor contact, a detailed probable cause affidavit built from the chat, and an early plea offer. Expect also that the full forensic record — complete chats, deleted messages, the persona's profile history, the operation's protocols — tells a more complicated story than the affidavit. Getting that record is step one.
Frequently Asked Questions
There was no actual minor. How can I be charged?
The statute is written for stings: a “person believed by the defendant to be a child” satisfies it. Impossibility is not a defense — but belief and intent must still be proven.
I never showed up to the meeting. Does that help?
For a traveling count, the State must prove travel for the prohibited purpose; what happened — and what was said — before any travel is often the dividing line between subsections (3) and (4), which carry very different penalties.
They kept my phone and car. Will I get them back?
Vehicles and devices are often held as evidence, and the chats will be extracted. Never consent to a search without counsel — make the State rely on its warrant, which can then be challenged.
Is a plea to a non-registrable offense possible?
Sometimes, depending on the chat content, entrapment exposure, and the office prosecuting. It is the most important negotiation in the case, and it is won with leverage built through the defense investigation.
The Chat Log Is Not the Whole Story
Chad Seibel is a former prosecutor who knows exactly how sting files are assembled — and what the excerpts leave out. Call or text 407-846-8008 for a free, confidential consultation. Office visits are by appointment only.