Farley v. State
848 So. 2d 393, 2003 WL 21459027 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Subjective entrapment occurs when a government agent induces a defendant to commit a crime that the defendant was not predisposed to commit, and the entrapment defense is evaluated by the jury. Additionally, law enforcement conduct that manufactures crime rather than detects it may violate due process under the objective entrapment doctrine.
Facts:
- Michael Farley's name appeared on a list uncovered during an unrelated child pornography investigation in Texas.
- The list was forwarded to the Broward County Sheriff's Office LEACH Taskforce, which conducted no further inquiry into Farley's background.
- LEACH sent unsolicited spam emails to everyone on the list, including Farley, advertising a fictitious business selling taboo sexual material.
- The emails and associated website contained repeated assurances of protection from government interference.
- Farley, who had no prior criminal history, responded to the email and engaged in an escalating exchange with undercover officers.
- Farley eventually ordered three VHS tapes containing child pornography, which were delivered in a controlled operation.
- Farley was arrested 20 minutes after accepting the tapes and paying for them.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the government's conduct in inducing Michael Farley to order child pornography constitute subjective entrapment as a matter of law and violate due process under the objective entrapment doctrine?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam (J.)
Yes, the government's conduct constituted subjective entrapment as a matter of law and violated due process under the objective entrapment doctrine. We find that the government induced Farley to commit the crime through its unsolicited spam emails, fraudulent representations, and repeated assurances of protection from government scrutiny. Farley was not predisposed to commit the crime, as evidenced by his lack of prior criminal history or any indication of past involvement with child pornography. The government's actions created a substantial risk that an otherwise law-abiding citizen would commit an offense. Furthermore, the law enforcement conduct in this case was outrageous and violated due process because it manufactured crime rather than detected it. LEACH created copies of child pornography videos and sought to manufacture crime based on a list of names and addresses of unknown origin, all while promising protection from government interference. This conduct is similar to other cases where courts have found due process violations, such as the manufacture of crack cocaine for sting operations or contingent fee arrangements for informant testimony. Therefore, we reverse Farley's conviction and sentence, concluding that the trial court erred in denying Farley's motion to dismiss based on both subjective entrapment as a matter of law and substantive due process/objective entrapment.
Analysis:
This case significantly impacts law enforcement tactics in sting operations, particularly those involving digital communications. It emphasizes the need for law enforcement to have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity before initiating reverse sting operations. The ruling also reinforces the importance of evaluating both subjective and objective entrapment claims, especially in cases where the government's conduct may be seen as manufacturing crime rather than detecting it. This decision may lead to increased scrutiny of undercover operations and potentially limit aggressive tactics that could be seen as entrapment or violations of due process.
