Biggest “bust” in ‘Operation Twelve Parsecs’ is the operation itself.
In what is described as a “massive” five-day, dozen-agency online sting operation, the media highlights only 13 arrests.
The “massive” operation, called “Operation Twelve Parsecs”, involved a dozen local, state, and federal agencies, including; the FDLE, Florida Highway Patrol, Florida Department of Agriculture, Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS), the United States Marshals Service, Escambia County Sheriff’s Office, Santa Rosa County Sheriff’s Office, Gulf Breeze Police Department, Marion County Sheriff’s Office, and the Lake City Police Department. We’re not sure why the FDLE is even highlighting the results in a press release. It sure sounds like the operation itself was a big bust! 12 agencies, five days, only thirteen arrests! And for getting trapped in an online sex sting with a law enforcement decoy? It sure seems like the fish in Florida are no longer taking the bait if they averaged less than one arrest per day, per agency!
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
How much salary did each of those dozens of officers get for overtime to participate and capture those “Massive” amounts of 13 arrestees?
So we have the Department of Agriculture getting involved? What is this ridiculousness? lol
Well, you know what they say, “sex sells”. I guess they’re all just trying to get a piece of the pie when budget increases come around.
For sure, the more these press releases get out the less likely people are going to be to fall for these traps.
They don’t care about performance — they care about spending. DHS just got another multibillion-dollar bump this year, and the money has to move. So they stage these “joint operations,” shuffle staff across agencies, issue a press release, and call it a success.
It’s not about safety or results anymore; it’s about justifying next year’s appropriation. When you hand bureaucracies that much cash, they’ll spend it like frat boys on an open tab — loud, sloppy, and proud of the hangover.
Good ol tax dollars hard at work 🤦
Here is some info for sting operations victims:
In United States v. Curry, the Ninth Circuit highlighted that the key issue in entrapment cases is whether the government supplied the criminal idea, especially when the defendant was initially seeking adult partners.
The appellate court rejected the idea that “he took the bait quickly” defeats entrapment. What matters is origin— not duration or resistance.
USA v. Curry: The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit emphasized that a defendant’s willingness after law enforcement introduces the idea does not establish predisposition. Seeking adults on an adult platform does not equate to seeking minors. The government created the minor scenario — that is not “opportunity,” it is inducement.
Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S.540 (1992):
“In their zeal to enforce the law…the Government must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was disposed to commit the criminal act prior to first being approached by Government agents.”
– The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was disposed to commit the criminal act prior to first being approached by Government agents.
“Government agents may not originate a criminal design, implant in an innocent person’s mind the disposition to commit a criminal act, and then induce its commission of the crime so that the Government may prosecute.”
“The Government must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was disposed to commit the criminal act prior to first being approached by Government agents.”
– The fact that the subject eventually agreed to the government’s request does not show predisposition; it shows only that he was willing to do what the Government induced him to do.
“Government agents may not originate a criminal design, implant in an innocent person’s mind the disposition to commit a criminal act, and then induce its commission so that the Government may prosecute.”
– Repeated efforts by the Government may not be used to manufacture criminal intent where none existed.
Cases Where Courts Found “Opportunity” Became Inducement:
Sherman v. United States, 356 U.S.369 (1958): “Entrapment occurs only when the criminal conduct is the product of the creative activity of law-enforcement officials…”
– The Court says it is “patently clear” that the defendant was induced.
– The Court also says the Government cannot use “eagerness” created by its own persuasion as proof of predisposition.
In these sting operation cases, it is patently clear that petitioner was induced, and the Government cannot rely on eagerness after its own persuasion to prove predisposition.
Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S.435 (1932): “A sound public policy requires that the Government should not be permitted to take advantage of the criminal intent which it has itself originated.”
And later: “The controlling question is whether the criminal intent originated in the mind of the defendant or was implanted there by the government.”
– The issue is whether the intent originated with the defendant or with the government.
– He was seeking adults — the government invented the minor.
United States v. Hollingsworth, 27F.3d 1196 (7th Cir. 1994) (en banc):
As the Seventh Circuit explained in United States v. Hollingsworth, entrapping conduct occurs where the government goes beyond offering an opportunity and instead introduces or shapes the criminal idea through its own conduct.
– The government is not allowed to manufacture crime by implanting in innocent persons the disposition to commit offenses and inducing their commission.
– Law enforcement may offer an opportunity, but supplying the criminal idea or steering the act into existence through suggestion or shaping the circumstances crosses the constitutional line.
United States v. Poehlman, 217 F.3d692 (9th Cir. 2000): The government used sexually explicit chats to draw out statements.
Poehlman held that predisposition cannot be inferred from statements or conduct that were elicited through the government’s own inducement.
The court emphasized that where the government initiates and encourages sexual discussions involving minors, it cannot later rely on that manufactured dialogue to prove predisposition.
“Predisposition cannot be established by conduct that was the product of the government’s own inducement.”
“The government first raised the subject of sex with children and repeatedly encouraged Poehlman to continue the discussions.”
– If the defendant would not have initiated sexual discussions about minors without the government decoy’s encouragement or framing, predisposition is not proven.
“The government’s repeated efforts to elicit sexualized responses were the very source of the conduct later used to show predisposition.”
The Ninth Circuit stressed: The government’s repeated efforts to elicit sexualized responses were the very source of the conduct later used to show predisposition.
“Inducement must be more than merely providing an opportunity, and predisposition must be shown to exist before the government’s involvement.”
– Poehlman held that predisposition cannot be inferred from statements or conduct that were elicited through the government’s own inducement.
– The court emphasized that where the government initiates and encourages sexual discussions involving minors, it cannot later rely on that manufactured dialogue to prove predisposition.
People v. McIntire: Michigan State case involving decoys who acted older and initiated escalation:
– Government agents cannot disguise inducement as investigation by constructing the very intent they later claim to have discovered.
In McIntire, the Michigan Court of Appeals addressed entrapment in the context of a sting operation where decoys pose as minors. The court emphasized that law enforcement cannot create the very crime they later prosecute.
“Open-Ended” Engagement as Inducement Federal courts have repeatedly criticized escalation tactics:
– Use of “fishing” prompts to elicit incriminating language
– Decoys pushing sexual tone rather than observing
– Government steering the target into illegal specifics
Relevant supportive language appears in:
Poehlman
Jacobson
Sherman
Hollingsworth
When the government asks “open-ended” sexual prompts in order to encourage escalation, it is not neutral observation — it is inducement.
Nice write up. Can you share with the ACSOL Forum, please?