Entrapment defense internet sting lawyer

Entrapment is frequently the first defense a person raises after a sting arrest and frequently the least understood. It is not established by showing that police created the opportunity, used a fictitious persona, or initiated contact — all of that is lawful. In most American jurisdictions it requires two things: government inducement, and the absence of predisposition. The second is where these cases are actually decided. Law Offices Of SRIS, P.C. has practiced since 1997 and Mr. Sris is admitted in Virginia, Maryland, the District of Columbia, New Jersey and New York. Reach our location at (888) 437-7747.

Table of Contents

The Two Elements

Inducement means more than an opportunity. Persuasion, pressure, repeated solicitation after refusal, appeals to sympathy, or conduct that would move a person not otherwise disposed to commit the offence can amount to inducement. Simply offering the chance does not.

Predisposition asks whether the person was ready and willing to commit the offence before the government became involved. Under the subjective approach most jurisdictions apply, this is the decisive element: even substantial inducement fails as a defense if the prosecution establishes predisposition. Some jurisdictions apply an objective test focused on the propriety of the police conduct rather than on the individual, and which test governs materially changes the case.

What the Complete Transcript Shows

These cases are documentary. The full communication record — not the excerpts in the charging affidavit — is the evidence, and it frequently reads differently in full.

What is examined: who first raised the subject that makes the conduct criminal, and at what point in the exchange. Whether the persona introduced the age, or the accused did. How the conversation was steered after any hesitation, refusal or withdrawal, and whether contact resumed after the accused disengaged. Whether the operation involved repeated approaches over time. And whether the persona persisted after statements that would have ended an ordinary exchange.

Obtaining the complete record matters because affidavits summarise, and a summary that presents the accused’s statements without the prompts that preceded them describes a different conversation.

How Predisposition Is Contested

The prosecution will offer the accused’s own statements in the exchange, any material found on devices, and any prior conduct admissible on the issue. The defense addresses the sequence: whether the readiness the prosecution points to appears only after sustained prompting, and whether anything establishes disposition existing before the government made contact.

Raising entrapment carries a real cost. In most jurisdictions it opens the door to evidence of predisposition that would otherwise be inadmissible, including prior conduct and material that would not come in on any other basis. That trade-off is assessed before the defense is raised, not after.

Related but Distinct Doctrines

Outrageous government conduct is a separate due process argument directed at the propriety of the operation rather than at the defendant’s state of mind, and it is available in principle even where predisposition exists. Factual impossibility and the question of whether an attempt can be completed where no actual minor existed are also distinct issues, addressed on their own terms rather than as versions of entrapment.

Collateral Consequences: Employment, Professional License, Security Clearance, Immigration

The proceedings that run alongside a criminal charge apply their own standards and reach their own conclusions. A professional licensing board can act on conduct that produced no conviction, applying a civil standard of proof rather than the criminal one. A security clearance adjudication examines conduct, candour and judgment, and a clearance can be suspended on an allegation alone. An employer may act under its own policies on its own timetable. For a person who is not a United States citizen, an offence in this category can carry immigration consequences that are severe and in some categories effectively automatic; immigration advice should be obtained alongside the criminal defense rather than after it. The firm does not advise on immigration matters and refers that question.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is it entrapment if the police started the conversation?

No. Creating an opportunity, using a fictitious persona and initiating contact are all lawful investigative techniques. Entrapment requires government inducement going beyond opportunity, together with the absence of predisposition in most jurisdictions. Initiation alone establishes neither.

What counts as inducement?

Persuasion, pressure, repeated solicitation after refusal, appeals to sympathy, or conduct capable of moving a person not otherwise disposed to commit the offence. The distinction is between offering a chance and pressing someone toward a decision they were not otherwise going to make.

Why is predisposition the decisive element?

Because under the subjective approach most jurisdictions apply, established predisposition defeats the defense regardless of how substantial the inducement was. Some jurisdictions apply an objective test focused on police conduct instead, and which test governs materially changes how the case is run.

What does the full transcript show that the affidavit does not?

Who first raised the subject making the conduct criminal and when; whether the persona or the accused introduced age; how the exchange was steered after hesitation, refusal or withdrawal; and whether contact resumed after disengagement. Affidavits summarise, and statements shown without the prompts preceding them describe a different conversation.

Is there a downside to raising entrapment?

A significant one. In most jurisdictions it opens the door to predisposition evidence that would otherwise be inadmissible, including prior conduct. That trade-off is assessed before the defense is raised rather than discovered once the evidence is admitted.

How is this different from outrageous government conduct?

That is a separate due process argument directed at the propriety of the operation rather than at the defendant’s state of mind, and it is available in principle even where predisposition exists. It is argued on its own terms rather than as a version of entrapment.

About Mr. Sris

Mr. Sris is the owner and founder of Law Offices Of SRIS, P.C., which has practiced since 1997. He is a former prosecutor and is admitted in Virginia, Maryland, the District of Columbia, New Jersey and New York. Of Counsel attorneys contract directly with the firm and handle matters alongside him.

Speak With Mr. Sris

Entrapment turns on predisposition rather than on who started the conversation, and raising it admits evidence that is otherwise excluded. Request a consultation. Reach our location at (888) 437-7747. Consultations are by appointment.

Last reviewed: August 24, 2026.

Attorney Advertising. Law Offices Of SRIS, P.C., principal office: 4008 Williamsburg Court, Fairfax, VA 22032. By appointment. Call (888) 437-7747 to schedule.

The information on this page is general and is not legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is created by reading it or by contacting the firm. Case results depend on a variety of factors unique to each case. Results may vary.

Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Attorney responsible for this advertising: Mr. Sris.