State v. Blanco
2005 WL 475542, 896 So. 2d 900 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An objective entrapment analysis on due process grounds focuses solely on whether law enforcement's conduct was so outrageous that it offends a sense of justice; it does not consider the defendant's predisposition or subjective state of mind. Disputed facts regarding inducement and predisposition preclude a pre-trial dismissal and must be resolved by a jury under a subjective entrapment analysis.
Facts:
- Law enforcement received a general, non-specific tip that drugs were being sold at a particular bar.
- An undercover officer went to the bar, approached Julio Blanco, who was sitting alone, and initiated a conversation.
- During the conversation, the officer indicated he liked to 'party' and clarified that by 'party,' he meant the use of cocaine.
- Blanco left the bar and went to the restroom.
- Upon returning, Blanco told the officer he could not find anyone selling cocaine but had found someone selling crystal meth.
- The officer gave money to Blanco, who then left and returned with the crystal meth, which he gave to the officer.
- The officer and Blanco exchanged phone numbers.
Procedural Posture:
- Julio Blanco was arrested and charged with a drug offense.
- Blanco filed a motion in the trial court to dismiss the charges on the grounds of entrapment.
- The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing, where both Blanco and the undercover officer testified.
- Following the hearing, the trial court granted Blanco's motion to dismiss the charges.
- The State of Florida, as appellant, appealed the trial court's order of dismissal to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an undercover officer's conduct, which involves initiating a conversation in a bar with an individual who was not a target of an investigation and using the term 'party' to lead to a drug transaction, constitute outrageous government conduct that violates due process and warrants a pre-trial dismissal of charges?
Opinions:
Majority - May, J.
No. The undercover officer's conduct was not so outrageous as to violate due process and warrant dismissal. An objective analysis of entrapment on due process grounds must focus exclusively on the conduct of law enforcement, not on the defendant's predisposition or subjective perception of the events. The trial court erred by considering factors such as Blanco not being a pre-existing target and his personal interpretation of the officer's advances. The police were investigating a tip about drug sales, and the officer's actions were part of a standard undercover operation that did not rise to the level of outrageousness required by precedents like Munoz v. State. Because the facts regarding the conversation and inducement are disputed, the question of subjective entrapment is a matter for a jury to decide, not for a judge to resolve on a pre-trial motion to dismiss.
Dissenting - Farmer, C.J.
Yes. The officer's conduct, which the trial judge was authorized to find as fact, was sufficiently outrageous to warrant dismissal. The majority incorrectly asserts that a judge cannot engage in fact-finding when considering an objective entrapment claim, which is a question of law for the court to decide to protect a defendant's due process rights. The trial judge found that the officer used implied sex as a lure to induce a drug transaction with an unsuspecting person, which constitutes intolerable government conduct. Furthermore, even under a subjective analysis, the State presented no evidence of Blanco's predisposition to commit the crime prior to the officer's inducement, which independently warrants dismissal as a matter of law. The majority's decision conflicts with Supreme Court of Florida precedent and creates a standard where only government-admitted misconduct could be addressed pre-trial.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high bar for defendants claiming objective entrapment based on a due process violation in Florida, strictly limiting the inquiry to the outrageousness of police conduct alone. It clarifies that a trial court cannot conflate the objective test (a constitutional question for the judge) with the subjective test (focused on the defendant's predisposition, usually a jury question). The ruling effectively channels most entrapment defenses with disputed facts towards a jury trial, narrowing the circumstances under which a judge can dismiss a case pre-trial due to police misconduct.
