What Is Entrapment?

Entrapment is a defense to criminal charges, and it's based on interaction between police officers and the defendant prior to (or during) the alleged crime. A typical entrapment scenario arises when law enforcement officers use coercion and other overbearing tactics to induce someone to commit a crime.

Read on to learn more about entrapment, including case examples and standards used to evaluate an entrapment claim.

Entrapment vs. Opportunity

The key aspect of entrapment is this: Government agents do not entrap defendants simply by offering them an opportunity to commit a crime. Judges expect people to resist any ordinary temptation to violate the law. An entrapment defense arises when government agents resort to repugnant behavior, such as the use of threats, harassment, fraud, or even flattery to induce defendants to commit crimes.

Example 1. Mary-Anne Berry is charged with selling illegal drugs to an undercover police officer. Berry testified that the drugs were for her personal use and only sold some to the officer at a party because the officer lied about needing them for her mom who was in a lot of pain. According to Berry, the officer even assured Berry that she wasn't a cop and wasn't setting up Berry. The police officer's actions do not amount to entrapment. Police officers are allowed to tell lies. The officer gave Berry an opportunity to break the law, but the officer did not engage in extreme or overbearing behavior.

Example 2. Mary-Anne Berry is charged with selling illegal drugs to an undercover police officer. Berry testified that, "The drugs were for my personal use. For nearly two weeks, the undercover officer stopped by my apartment and pleaded with me to sell her some of my stash because her mom was extremely sick and needed the drugs for pain relief. I kept refusing. When the officer told me that the drugs would allow her mom to be comfortable for the few days she had left to live, I broke down and sold her some drugs. She immediately arrested me." The undercover agent's repeated entreaties and lies are sufficiently extreme to constitute entrapment and result in a not-guilty verdict.

Did Entrapment Occur?

States employ either an objective or a subjective standard to determine whether entrapment occurred. Entrapment defenses are less likely to succeed under a subjective standard.

Objective vs. Subjective Standard

Under an objective standard, when defendants offer entrapment evidence jurors decide whether a police officer's actions would have induced a normally law-abiding person to commit a crime.

Under a subjective standard, when a defendant offers entrapment evidence, jurors decide whether the defendant's predisposition to commit the crime makes the defendant responsible for their actions, regardless of any government agent's inducements.

Entrapment Example Using Objective and Subjective Standards

Let's say Jim is charged with serving as a lookout during a liquor store robbery carried out by a street gang. Jim claims that Snitch, a neighborhood friend who turned out to be an undercover police officer, entrapped him by telling him that he had to participate in the robbery or Snitch would be unable to protect him from gang retribution.

Objective standard. In a state that employs an objective test for entrapment, a jury decides whether Snitch's actions would have induced a normally law-abiding person to participate in the robbery.

Subjective standard. In a state that employs a subjective test for entrapment, the prosecutor can offer evidence of Jim's predisposition to commit the crime, including that Jim had a lengthy rap sheet and that he was anxious to join the street gang and wanted to prove his mettle by participating in a violent crime. A jury would then decide whether Jim participated in the robbery out of his own willingness to do so, regardless of Snitch's actions.

Entrapment Defense Applies to Government Actors

Entrapment law is a leash intended to curb outrageous conduct by police officers and other public officials. An entrapment defense does not arise if private individuals convince defendants to commit crimes. For example, in the scenario involving Jim and Snitch, assume that Snitch is a private person and not an undercover government agent. In that case, Snitch's actions could not constitute entrapment at all.

How Does a Defendant Prove Entrapment?

Entrapment is an affirmative defense. Thus, defendants have the burden of convincing jurors by a preponderance of the evidence (a more-likely-than-not standard) that government agents' actions rose to the level of entrapment.

Objective standard. In a state that employs an objective test of entrapment, a conclusion that entrapment took place results in a not-guilty verdict.

Subjective standard. In a state that employs a subjective test of entrapment, a conclusion that entrapment took place results in the burden of proof shifting back to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty because the defendant's predisposition to commit the crime—not the government agent's actions—prompted the defendant to commit the crime.

Examples of State Entrapment Laws

Below are examples of the different entrapment standards used in California and Florida.

California: Objective Standard

In California, entrapment is a defense if conduct by law enforcement agents that would likely induce a normally law-abiding person to commit a crime induced the defendant to commit a charged crime. The defendant has the burden of proving entrapment by a preponderance of the evidence. Law enforcement agents are allowed to provide opportunity for the commission of a crime, but they cannot induce people to commit crimes by engaging in overbearing conduct such as badgering, coaxing or cajoling, importuning, or other acts likely to induce a normally law-abiding person to commit a crime. (Cal. Crim. Jury Inst. 3408 (2025).)

Florida: Subjective Standard

Florida defendants who allege entrapment have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a government agent induced the defendant to commit a charged crime. Defendants must also offer evidence that they were not predisposed to commit the crime. If a defendant offers evidence of lack of predisposition, the burden of proof shifts to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime. (Fla. Stat. § 777.201 (2025); Harris v. Florida, 279 So.3d 268 (5th Dist. Ct. App. 2019).)

Learn More About Defenses in Criminal Cases

Check out our article on Defenses to Criminal Charges: An Overview to learn more about common defenses used in criminal cases. If you face criminal charges, be sure to talk to your lawyer about possible defenses that might apply in your case.