Hillsborough County Soliciting a Minor Sting Operation Defense Attorney Fighting Charges Involving Fictitious Minors and Undercover Detectives.
 

Being arrested in a Hillsborough County Internet sting can be difficult to understand when you learn that the supposed teenager you were communicating with never existed. You may have been exchanging messages with an undercover detective, responding to an adult officer pretending to be a teenager, or speaking with an officer claiming to be the parent or guardian of a child. It is natural to wonder how Florida can prosecute a crime involving the solicitation of a minor when there was never an actual child who could have been solicited, harmed, or placed in danger.

Florida law was specifically written to address that situation. Section 847.0135, Florida Statutes, applies not only when someone communicates with an actual child, but also when the person communicates with someone the accused allegedly believed was a child. The statute also expressly covers attempts to solicit, lure, entice, or seduce. That means the prosecution may pursue a felony even though every person involved in the communication was an adult.

That does not mean the State automatically has a strong case. In a sting prosecution, I want to know exactly how the conversation began, who introduced sexual subjects, when an age was disclosed, what my client actually said, what the detective said, whether messages were taken out of context, and whether the alleged conduct demonstrates criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that police created the fictitious identity does not eliminate the State's burden of proving every required element.

These cases can expose a person to felony prosecution, incarceration, probation, sex-offender registration consequences, employment problems, licensing problems, family consequences, and permanent reputational damage. For that reason, I believe a person accused in a Hillsborough County sting should have a Hillsborough County Sex Crime Defense Attorney reviewing the electronic evidence before deciding whether the State's description of the case is accurate.

What Florida Law Says About Soliciting Someone You Believe Is a Minor

The principal statute in many online sting cases is Section 847.0135(3), Florida Statutes, entitled “Certain Uses of Computer Services or Devices Prohibited.” The statute makes it unlawful to knowingly use an Internet service, computer service, or another device capable of electronic storage or transmission to seduce, solicit, lure, entice, or attempt to do those things to a child or to another person whom the defendant believes to be a child for unlawful sexual conduct.

One of the most important phrases in the statute is:

“a child or another person believed by the person to be a child”

Florida included that language precisely because Internet sting investigations often involve an adult detective rather than an actual teenager. The First District Court of Appeal explained in Cashatt v. State that this language addresses attempted solicitation when the recipient is actually an adult but the sender allegedly believes that person is a minor.

A standard violation of Section 847.0135(3) is a third-degree felony. If the accused misrepresents his or her age while committing the offense, the statute elevates the crime to a second-degree felony. The statute also provides that separate uses of an electronic service or device may potentially be charged as separate offenses.

When I defend one of these cases, I do not stop at the allegation that my client talked with a supposed teenager. I examine whether the communication actually amounted to solicitation, enticement, luring, or seduction for illegal sexual conduct. A conversation can be embarrassing, inappropriate, suggestive, immature, or offensive without necessarily satisfying every element of the felony charged.

Hillsborough County Soliciting a Minor Sting Operation Defense Attorney Examining What You Actually Believed

The fictitious nature of the supposed child moves the issue of belief to the center of the case. Prosecutors may argue that messages discussing school, parents, age, homework, curfews, or other teenage subjects prove that the defendant believed the undercover detective was underage. I examine the entire communication rather than accepting isolated messages selected by the investigating agency.

Important questions can include:

• Did the undercover detective clearly state an age, and what did my client say immediately afterward?

• Were there contradictory statements suggesting the profile belonged to an adult?

• Did my client indicate that he believed the person was joking, role-playing, lying about age, or actually an adult?

• Who repeatedly pushed the discussion toward sexual activity, and did my client attempt to change or end the subject?

• Were screenshots, disappearing messages, edited transcripts, or portions of the conversation omitted from the police report?

• Do device records establish that my client actually authored every message attributed to him?

A private defense attorney can demand and review far more than an arrest affidavit. I may want the native electronic communications, extraction reports, undercover operational records, recordings, body-camera footage, surveillance video, device information, search-warrant materials, and communications among officers participating in the operation.

This matters because an arrest affidavit is normally written to establish probable cause, not to present every fact helpful to the defense. The complete electronic record may tell a materially different story.

There Does Not Have to Be an Actual Child for Florida Attempt Liability

Another common misconception is that an impossible crime cannot be prosecuted. Florida's attempt statute, Section 777.04, allows prosecution when a person allegedly intends to commit an offense and performs an act toward its commission but fails, is interrupted, or is prevented from completing it.

Section 847.0135 goes further because its own language specifically includes attempts to “seduce, solicit, lure, or entice.” As a result, prosecutors do not necessarily need to show that an actual child existed or that sexual activity could ever have occurred with the fictitious teenager.

The legal focus may instead become what the defendant intended and what actions the defendant took based on that alleged intent. That is why statements, context, timing, and the conduct of the undercover officer can become critical evidence.

I would closely examine whether the State is attempting to convert fantasy, role-playing, curiosity, equivocal language, or incomplete plans into proof of a settled criminal purpose. Criminal intent must be proven, not assumed merely because police created a profile representing a minor.

Hillsborough County Soliciting a Minor Sting Operation Defense Attorney Reviewing Intent

Intent is often where the real fight occurs. The government may have hundreds of messages, but volume does not necessarily prove the particular intent required by the charged statute.

The Florida jury instruction applicable to Section 847.0135(3)(a) generally requires the State to prove that the defendant knowingly used the covered electronic service or device, that the recipient was a child or a person the defendant believed to be a child, and that during the contact the defendant seduced, solicited, lured, enticed, or attempted to do so for unlawful sexual conduct.

I therefore look carefully at the distinction between discussing sex and actually asking, encouraging, persuading, or enticing the supposed minor to participate in illegal sexual activity. Courts can consider indirect statements and the complete context, so simply avoiding explicit words is not necessarily a defense. Florida appellate decisions have recognized that a jury may consider implicit communications together with surrounding conversations when deciding whether solicitation occurred.

That makes complete context particularly important for the defense. I want the jury, prosecutor, and court to see what happened before and after the statements highlighted by detectives, not merely the most damaging lines copied into the probable-cause affidavit.

Traveling to Meet the Fictitious Minor Can Create an Additional Felony

If the accused travels after the electronic communication, Section 847.0135(4), Florida Statutes, can become particularly important. Florida's traveling-to-meet-a-minor provision applies when a person travels any distance, attempts to travel, or causes another person to travel for the alleged purpose of engaging in unlawful sexual conduct after using electronic communications to solicit, lure, seduce, or entice a child or someone believed to be a child.

Traveling to meet a minor under subsection (4) is a second-degree felony. Florida law generally allows a second-degree felony to be punished by up to 15 years of imprisonment, while a third-degree felony may ordinarily carry up to five years, subject to Florida's Criminal Punishment Code and any applicable sentencing provisions. Felony fines can also reach $10,000 for a second-degree felony and $5,000 for a third-degree felony.

The fact that someone arrived at a predetermined location is powerful evidence for prosecutors, but it does not eliminate the intent element. I may investigate why the person traveled, what was said immediately before the trip, whether the meeting remained conditioned on circumstances that never occurred, what items were found in the vehicle, and whether innocent explanations are consistent with the physical evidence.

Because a traveling charge substantially increases potential exposure, early defense work can be extremely important. A private attorney can evaluate whether the State can actually establish the required connection between the electronic communications, the travel, and an intended unlawful sexual act.

A Hillsborough County Sting Can Produce Multiple Criminal Counts

A single investigation can generate several charges. Police may count individual communications separately, add traveling-to-meet-a-minor allegations, charge unlawful use of a two-way communications device, or pursue related offenses based on photographs, videos, or alleged conduct during the investigation.

Potential allegations may include:

• Solicitation through an electronic device under Section 847.0135(3).

• Traveling to meet a minor under Section 847.0135(4).

• Lewd or lascivious offenses under Section 800.04 when legally applicable.

• Unlawful use of a two-way communications device when the facts and current statute support the charge.

• Additional electronic or sexual-offense allegations arising from images or transmissions.

Multiple counts do not necessarily mean that multiple convictions and sentences are legally permitted. The relationship among the charges must be analyzed under Florida double-jeopardy law, particularly when the alleged offenses arise from the same communication and the same planned meeting.

That analysis can make an enormous difference. A defense attorney should examine not only whether each count can be proven but also whether Florida law permits the State to punish the defendant separately for each count.

Hillsborough County Case Law Shows Why Double-Jeopardy Analysis Matters

A significant recent Hillsborough County case illustrates this issue. In Hatcher v. State, decided by Florida's Second District Court of Appeal on January 3, 2025, an undercover detective posed as a 15-year-old girl in an online chat room. The defendant traveled to meet the fictitious girl and was convicted of traveling to meet a minor, solicitation through computer services, and two counts involving use of a two-way communications device.

The Second District did not overturn the traveling conviction, but it found a double-jeopardy problem with the overlapping convictions. The court concluded that, under the facts of that criminal episode, the solicitation offense and two-way communications-device offenses were subsumed within the traveling offense. It vacated those convictions and remanded the case for resentencing on the traveling count.

That case originated in the Hillsborough County Circuit Court, making it particularly relevant when examining local sting prosecutions. It shows why I would never evaluate one of these cases simply by looking at the number of counts printed on the charging document.

A private defense lawyer can examine whether counts overlap, whether the State has improperly multiplied a single course of conduct into several offenses, and whether motions should be filed attacking legally impermissible convictions or punishment.

Entrapment Is More Complicated Than “The Police Started It”

People frequently use the word entrapment when an undercover officer created the fictitious profile. That alone does not establish an entrapment defense, and Section 847.0135 expressly states that undercover law-enforcement involvement does not by itself constitute a defense.

Florida nevertheless recognizes entrapment under Section 777.201. In simplified terms, the statute addresses situations in which law enforcement induces or encourages criminal conduct through methods creating a substantial risk that the offense will be committed by someone who was not otherwise ready to commit it. A defendant asserting statutory entrapment must prove the defense by a preponderance of the evidence.

An entrapment analysis may involve questions such as:

1. Did the officer merely provide an opportunity to commit an offense, or did the officer aggressively create and drive the criminal proposal?

2. Who first introduced the illegal sexual activity, and what happened when the defendant hesitated or attempted to disengage?

3. Did the officer repeatedly pressure, persuade, reassure, manipulate, or overcome reluctance?

4. Does the evidence indicate that the defendant was predisposed to commit the offense before the government's inducement?

These are fact-intensive questions. I would review the complete communication sequence because an officer's conduct can look very different when every message is read chronologically rather than when a handful of statements are reproduced in an arrest report.

A private attorney can also determine whether entrapment is the appropriate defense at all. Raising it carelessly can create strategic problems because the defense may involve acknowledging conduct while disputing why it occurred, whereas another case may be better defended by arguing that the State cannot prove criminal intent in the first place.

Other Defenses I May Examine in a Soliciting-a-Minor Sting Case

Every case depends on its evidence, but several defenses and challenges may deserve investigation. I do not assume that one defense fits every sting prosecution because the strongest theory must be built from the actual communications and physical evidence.

Depending on the circumstances, I may investigate:

• Lack of proof that my client actually believed the undercover officer was a minor.

• Lack of intent to solicit or entice unlawful sexual activity.

• Ambiguous, joking, fantasy-based, role-playing, or incomplete communications that do not establish the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

• Entrapment or improper law-enforcement inducement.

• Problems establishing who actually controlled or used the phone, account, application, or computer.

• Missing, deleted, altered, incomplete, or contextually misleading electronic communications.

• Unlawful searches, seizures, interrogations, or device examinations.

• Double-jeopardy problems created by overlapping counts arising from the same criminal episode.

I can also examine whether law enforcement complied with constitutional requirements when obtaining the phone, searching electronic accounts, questioning the accused, or executing search warrants. Evidence obtained in violation of constitutional protections may become the subject of a suppression motion when the facts and law support one.

Private representation gives me the opportunity to investigate these issues before treating the police narrative as established fact. In a case carrying possible sex-offender consequences, that level of scrutiny can be critical.

Sex-Offender Registration Can Be One of the Most Serious Consequences

A conviction under Section 847.0135 can create consequences extending far beyond jail or probation. Florida's sexual-offender registration statute, Section 943.0435, includes qualifying convictions involving Section 847.0135, with subsection (6) excluded from the statutory listing. Florida's definition of conviction for registration purposes can also include a guilty or no-contest plea even when adjudication is withheld under circumstances covered by the statute.

Registration can affect where a person lives, employment opportunities, Internet identifiers, reporting obligations, reputation, family relationships, and future interactions with law enforcement. The exact registration consequences depend on the conviction and individual circumstances, which is why I would analyze them before advising a client to accept any plea.

A quick resolution is not necessarily a good resolution. Reducing or eliminating a charge may have consequences far more important than simply changing the number of months of probation being discussed.

Why I Fight the Charge Before Focusing Only on Sentencing

Someone arrested during a sting operation may assume that the presence of text messages makes conviction inevitable. That is exactly when careful defense preparation matters most because digital evidence can create a strong first impression while still raising substantial questions about meaning, context, authorship, intent, inducement, or the legal sufficiency of particular counts.

My first goal is to determine whether the charge can be attacked. Depending on the evidence, I may seek dismissal, suppression of evidence, exclusion of particular statements, dismissal of duplicative counts, reduction to a lesser charge, or a negotiated resolution that limits criminal and collateral consequences.

I also examine weaknesses that can be presented to the prosecutor before trial. Prosecutors make charging and plea decisions based partly on how they assess the likelihood of conviction, and a defense supported by records, communications, forensic evidence, and applicable appellate decisions can place the case in a very different posture than an unsupported request for leniency.

A private attorney can prepare for litigation while simultaneously looking for opportunities to reduce exposure. Those two approaches are not inconsistent, preparation for trial can strengthen the defense's negotiating position.

Example of How I May Build the Defense

Consider an illustrative situation in which a man enters an adult dating chat room and begins speaking with a profile that appears to belong to an adult woman. After a substantial conversation, the undercover officer suddenly claims to be 15. The man responds that he does not believe the claim, continues speaking, and makes several inappropriate jokes, but repeatedly refers to the profile as an adult pretending to be younger.

Suppose the detective later introduces increasingly explicit sexual subjects, repeatedly proposes meeting, gives the location, and presses the man after he initially declines. The man eventually drives toward the location but messages that he only intends to verify whether the person is real. Police arrest him nearby and characterize several selected messages as proof of solicitation and traveling to meet a minor.

In that situation, I would not treat the arrest report as the complete case. I would obtain the entire communication history and organize it chronologically, identifying every statement concerning age, disbelief, sexual conduct, reluctance, meeting plans, and the undercover officer's persuasion. I would compare those records against the affidavit to determine whether material context was omitted.

I would then examine whether the State can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that my client actually believed the person was a child, whether his statements legally constituted solicitation or enticement, and whether the travel was for the specific unlawful purpose alleged. I would separately investigate entrapment, device evidence, statements made after arrest, search-and-seizure issues, and whether multiple charges violate double-jeopardy principles.

This is an illustrative example of how I may construct a defense, not a representation of a particular Musca Law case result. I would never promise dismissal or another outcome, but I can force the prosecution to prove the case it actually has rather than the case suggested by the initial accusation.

Hillsborough County Soliciting a Minor Sting Operation Defense FAQs

Can I Be Convicted of Soliciting a Minor If the “Minor” Was Really a Police Officer?

Yes, Florida law permits prosecution even when the supposed child was actually an adult undercover officer. Section 847.0135(3) specifically applies to a child or another person whom the defendant allegedly believed to be a child, and it expressly includes attempted solicitation, luring, enticement, or seduction.

The State must still prove the required belief and criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt. I would examine what the officer said about age, how my client responded, whether contradictory age information appeared anywhere in the exchange, and whether the complete communications support the prosecution's interpretation.

Is It a Defense That No Child Was Ever in Danger?

Not by itself. Florida's Legislature structured Section 847.0135 so that undercover sting prosecutions can proceed without an actual child, and Florida appellate decisions have recognized that the “person believed” language applies when the recipient is an adult officer.

The absence of an actual child can still affect how the evidence and alleged intent are analyzed. Because the prosecution relies heavily on what my client allegedly believed rather than on contact with a real victim, communications demonstrating doubt, adult role-playing, ambiguity, or a different purpose can become particularly significant.

Is Talking About Sex With Someone Claiming to Be Underage Automatically Solicitation?

No. The prosecution must establish the elements of the charged offense, not merely prove that sexual words appeared in a conversation. The State generally needs to prove that the communication amounted to seducing, soliciting, luring, enticing, or attempting to engage the supposed child in prohibited sexual conduct.

Context matters, however, because courts may consider indirect or implicit statements together with the surrounding communications. I therefore examine the complete conversation rather than relying on isolated sexual comments selected by law enforcement.

What If the Undercover Detective Brought Up Sex First?

That fact can be important, but it does not automatically establish entrapment. Police are generally permitted to provide an opportunity for criminal conduct, and undercover involvement alone is expressly not a defense under Section 847.0135.

The analysis becomes more significant when police repeatedly induce, pressure, persuade, or overcome the reluctance of someone who was not otherwise ready to commit the alleged offense. Florida's entrapment statute, Section 777.201, provides a defense under qualifying circumstances, so I would study the entire conversation before deciding whether entrapment should be raised.

Can I Be Charged With Traveling to Meet a Minor If I Only Drove a Short Distance?

Yes. Section 847.0135(4) uses extraordinarily broad language and covers a person who “travels any distance,” attempts to travel, or causes another person to travel when the other required elements are established.

Travel itself is not the only issue. The State must connect the travel to the alleged purpose of engaging in unlawful sexual conduct following the covered electronic communications, so I would investigate what the accused intended to do at the destination and whether the prosecution can establish that purpose beyond a reasonable doubt.

Can Prosecutors Charge Me for Both Solicitation and Traveling to Meet a Minor?

They may initially file multiple counts, but whether multiple convictions and sentences can legally stand is a separate question. Florida double-jeopardy law can prohibit overlapping convictions when one offense is subsumed within another under the circumstances of the same criminal episode.

The Second District addressed that issue in the Hillsborough County case Hatcher v. State. The court vacated the defendant's solicitation and communications-device convictions because those offenses were subsumed within the traveling offense on the facts of that case, while leaving the traveling conviction intact.

Could I Have to Register as a Sex Offender?

Potentially, yes. Florida's sexual-offender registration law includes qualifying Section 847.0135 offenses, and the definition of conviction can apply to certain guilty or no-contest pleas regardless of whether adjudication is withheld.

That is one reason I believe plea decisions in these cases require careful legal analysis. A disposition that appears favorable because it limits incarceration may still create severe registration and collateral consequences.

Should I Explain to Detectives That I Knew the Person Was Really an Adult?

I would strongly caution against attempting to talk your way out of an Internet sting arrest without counsel. Detectives may already possess transcripts, recordings, device information, surveillance evidence, and statements from multiple officers, and additional explanations can become evidence if they contain inconsistencies or admissions.

I would rather review the evidence before deciding what, if anything, should be communicated to law enforcement or prosecutors. Exercising constitutional rights and obtaining legal advice should not be confused with having something to hide.

Can a Private Attorney Get the Charges Reduced or Dismissed?

No attorney can guarantee that a felony will be reduced or dismissed. What I can do is investigate whether the State can prove each element, identify constitutional problems, challenge improperly obtained evidence, expose weaknesses in intent or belief, raise entrapment when supported, attack overlapping counts, and prepare the case for trial.

Those efforts may create opportunities for dismissal, charge reduction, reduced penalties, or a more favorable negotiated resolution, depending on the evidence. The objective should be to improve the client's position through documented legal and factual weaknesses rather than simply asking the prosecutor for a better offer.

Contact Our Hillsborough County Soliciting a Minor Sting Operation Defense Attorney For a FREE Consultation

An Internet sting arrest involving a fictitious minor can become a serious felony prosecution even though no actual child existed. Florida law specifically covers communications with a person believed to be a child, and traveling after those communications can increase the potential criminal exposure considerably. At the same time, prosecutors must still prove criminal intent, belief about age, the nature of the alleged solicitation, and every other required element beyond a reasonable doubt.

I believe these cases deserve immediate examination of the full electronic record, not merely the detective's interpretation of selected messages. Questions involving intent, entrapment, electronic evidence, searches, statements, overlapping charges, double jeopardy, sentencing exposure, and sex-offender registration can materially affect how the defense should be built.

Contact Musca Law 24/7/365 at 1-888-484-5057 For Your FREE Consultation.

Musca Law, P.A. has a team of experienced criminal defense attorneys dedicated to defending people charged with a criminal or traffic offense. We are available 24/7/365 at 1-888-484-5057 for your FREE consultation.

Musca Law has 35 office locations throughout the state of Florida and serves clients throughout Florida, including Jacksonville, Miami, Tampa, Orlando, St. Petersburg, Hialeah, Port St. Lucie, Cape Coral, Tallahassee, Fort Lauderdale, West Palm Beach, Gainesville, Clearwater, Lakeland, Hollywood, Pembroke Pines, Fort Myers, Naples, Daytona Beach, Pensacola, the Florida Panhandle, Hillsborough County, and every county in Florida. If you have been arrested or are under investigation after an online sting involving a supposed minor, speak with a criminal defense attorney before making decisions that could affect your freedom, record, reputation, and future.