Entrapment Defense in Florida DUI Cases

While the entrapment defense is rarely raised in DUI cases, it can be a powerful tool when law enforcement officers induce or encourage conduct that leads to a DUI arrest. Florida law recognizes that individuals should not be punished for crimes that result directly from governmental persuasion, coercion, or trickery.

In the context of a DUI (Driving Under the Influence) charge, entrapment may apply when an officer’s actions, such as ordering someone to move a vehicle or “sleep it off” in a car, cause a person to engage in conduct they would not otherwise have performed.

This defense, though narrow, has been upheld in other states and recognized as theoretically applicable under Florida law.

Attorneys for DUI Entrapment Defense in Tampa, FL

If you believe you were encouraged, ordered, or manipulated by law enforcement into driving while impaired, you may have a valid entrapment defense under Florida law.

At Sammis Law Firm, our attorneys have decades of experience challenging unlawful police tactics and defending clients against DUI charges across Hillsborough, Pasco, Polk, and Pinellas Counties.

Our legal team understands how to Identify improper police inducement and uncover evidence of unlawful DUI operations.

Contact Our Tampa DUI Defense Lawyers

Call (813) 250-0500 today to schedule a free consultation with an experienced Tampa DUI defense attorney.
We represent clients throughout the Tampa Bay area, including Brandon, Clearwater, Plant City, St. Petersburg, and New Port Richey, FL.

Let us help you protect your rights and expose unlawful law enforcement conduct that led to your DUI arrest.

Information Center

• What Is Entrapment Under Florida Law?
• Types of Entrapment in Florida DUI Cases
• Common Scenarios Where Entrapment May Apply in a DUI Case
• Legal Elements of the Entrapment Defense in a Florida DUI Case
• Factors Courts Consider When Evaluating Entrapment
• Importance of “Predisposition” in Florida DUI Entrapment
• Potential Outcomes of an Entrapment Defense
• Entrapment and DUI Sting Operations
• Related Florida Cases and Legal Authority

Back to top

What Is Entrapment Under Florida Law?

Under Florida Statute §777.201, entrapment occurs when a law enforcement officer or government agent: “Induces or encourages another person to engage in conduct constituting an offense by employing methods of persuasion or inducement creating a substantial risk that such an offense will be committed by a person other than one who is ready to commit it.”

Entrapment is an affirmative defense, meaning the defendant admits to the act but argues it was the result of improper government conduct. If successfully raised, entrapment can result in a complete dismissal or acquittal of the DUI charge.

Back to top

Types of Entrapment in Florida DUI Cases

Florida law recognizes two distinct types of entrapment: subjective and objective.

Subjective Entrapment

The subjective test, established in Munoz v. State, 629 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 1993), focuses on the defendant’s state of mind and predisposition to commit the crime.

To raise this defense, the defendant must first present evidence that:

1. A law enforcement officer induced or persuaded them to commit the offense; and
2. They were not predisposed to commit the offense before the government’s involvement.

Once this threshold is met, the burden shifts to the prosecution, who must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was predisposed to commit the DUI.

Objective Entrapment

The objective test focuses instead on the officer’s conduct.
If the actions of law enforcement are found to be so outrageous or fundamentally unfair that they violate due process rights, the court may dismiss the charges, even if the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime.

This version of the defense is rarely granted but can apply where officers abuse their authority or act in bad faith to provoke a crime that would not have otherwise occurred.

Back to top

Common Scenarios Where Entrapment May Apply in a DUI Case

Although Florida appellate courts have not squarely addressed entrapment in DUI prosecutions, similar fact patterns have arisen in trial courts and other jurisdictions. Some examples include:

• Ordered to Move a Vehicle: An officer instructs an intoxicated person to “move the car out of the road” or “pull into a parking lot,” and then immediately arrests them for driving under the influence.
• Told to “Sleep It Off” in the Car: A person lawfully decides to stay in their car to avoid driving drunk. A responding officer tells them to “turn on the engine for air conditioning” or “move to a safer spot,” later using those actions as grounds for a DUI arrest for being in actual physical control of the vehicle.
• Undercover Bar or Parking Lot Operations: Officers wait in parking lots near bars or nightclubs and initiate contact with intoxicated individuals, encouraging them to drive or reposition their vehicle before arresting them.

In each of these examples, the key factor is government inducement, whether the officer’s words or actions caused the conduct that led to the DUI.

Back to top

Legal Elements of the Entrapment Defense in a Florida DUI Case

To assert a subjective entrapment defense under Munoz v. State (Fla. 1993), the following elements must be shown:

1. The defendant proves, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a government agent induced the commission of the offense.
2. The defendant presents some evidence that they were not predisposed to commit the DUI (even if the court doubts its persuasiveness).
3. Once raised, the burden shifts to the prosecution, which must then prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was predisposed to commit the DUI independent of government inducement.

If the prosecution fails to meet that burden, the defendant is entitled to acquittal.

Back to top

Factors Courts Consider When Evaluating Entrapment

When assessing an entrapment claim, courts and juries will examine factors such as:

• Whether the officer suggested or directed the defendant to drive;
• Whether the defendant had previous intent or motivation to operate the vehicle;
• The nature of the officer’s communication (command vs. suggestion);
• The defendant’s level of impairment and judgment; and
• Whether a reasonable person would have felt compelled to comply with the officer’s direction.

In short, the focus is on whether the criminal act was freely chosen or manufactured by law enforcement behavior.

Back to top

Importance of “Predisposition” in Florida DUI Entrapment

The most contested issue in entrapment defenses is predisposition, whether the defendant was already inclined to commit the offense before law enforcement became involved.

If the prosecution can show the defendant planned to drive while impaired, the defense will fail. However, if evidence shows the defendant only drove because of law enforcement direction or pressure, then the entrapment defense may succeed.

Factors used to assess predisposition include:

• Prior DUI arrests or statements of intent to drive;
• Efforts to avoid driving (such as sleeping in the car or calling for a ride);
• The defendant’s overall demeanor and cooperation; and
• The timing and context of the officer’s involvement.

Back to top

Potential Outcomes of an Entrapment Defense

If a judge finds objective entrapment, the case may be dismissed before trial for violation of due process.

If a jury finds subjective entrapment, it may return a not guilty verdict, concluding that the defendant only committed the act due to government persuasion.

Even when not fully successful, raising the entrapment defense can:

• Weaken the prosecution’s case,
• Lead to reduced charges (e.g., reckless driving instead of DUI), or
• Support a plea negotiation emphasizing unfair law enforcement conduct.

Back to top

Entrapment and DUI Sting Operations

Law enforcement agencies in Florida occasionally conduct DUI task forces or bar parking lot operations. While intended to deter drunk driving, these stings can cross the line into unconstitutional entrapment if officers:

• Encourage intoxicated individuals to enter their vehicles,
• Order them to “move along,”
• Or create conditions that provoke a DUI arrest.

A defense attorney can challenge these tactics by subpoenaing body-cam footage, dispatch records, and internal police directives to show that the officer’s actions manufactured the offense.

Back to top

Related Florida Cases and Legal Authority

Munoz v. State, 629 So.2d 90 (Fla. 1993) — Florida Supreme Court’s seminal decision adopting the modern (statutory) subjective entrapment framework and discussing objective due-process entrapment.

State v. Blanco, 896 So.2d 900 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) — Fourth DCA opinion explaining subjective vs. objective entrapment; useful for how Florida courts analyze inducement/predisposition in undercover operations.

State v. Casper, 417 So.2d 263 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) — often cited for when entrapment can be decided as a matter of law on undisputed facts; later discussed by the Florida Supreme Court in Cruz.