Defending the Accused Online Predator
Including Undercover Police or Vigilantes

South Florida Criminal Defense AttorneyLet Alan S. Bernstein, P.A., handle your criminal defense.Free consultation – call 954-925-3111 or 954-347-1000 on evenings and weekends

​

In Florida, "predator hunter" cases are no longer just the work of law enforcement. The rise of social media vigilante groups has created a new legal landscape where digital vigilantes act as investigators, judges, and executioners.

For the accused, the stakes are extreme. These cases often involve second-degree felonies under Florida Statute § 847.0135, carrying mandatory prison sentences and a lifetime of sex offender registration. Defending these charges requires a sophisticated understanding of the "fantasy vs. intent" dichotomy and the technical failures inherent in amateur "stings."

​

1. The Statutory Landscape: Florida Statute § 847.0135

Florida’s "Computer Protection Act" is one of the most aggressive in the nation. Prosecutors typically build their cases on two primary theories:

• Computer Solicitation [§ 847.0135(3)]: Using an electronic device to lure or entice a person believed to be a minor for sexual conduct.

• Traveling to Meet a Minor [§ 847.0135(4)]: The act of traveling to a specific location with the specific intent to commit a sexual offense.

The "Specific Intent" Hurdle: While the State relies on voluminous chat logs and your presence at a "sting" location, they must prove you had the actual, subjective intent to commit a crime. If you arrived out of curiosity, confusion, or under the impression you were meeting an adult roleplaying as a minor, the prosecution’s case may crumble.

​

2. Challenging the Vigilante Narrative: Social Media Vigilantes and Amateur Evidence

When a case is initiated by a social media vigilante group rather than a trained detective, the evidence is often riddled with procedural errors. We aggressively challenge these cases on three fronts:

​

Authentication & Foundation (Evidence Code § 90.901)

Under Florida Evidence Code § 90.901, the prosecution must prove that the chat logs are authentic. Amateur "catchers" often lack forensic expertise, leading to:

• Edited or "cherry-picked" screenshots.

• Gaps in message timestamps.

• Missing context that could exonerate the defendant.

​​

Chain of Custody

Unlike the Delray Beach Police, Boynton Beach Police, or Palm Beach Sheriff's Office, vigilantes do not follow strict protocols for evidence preservation. If the phone or computer logs were handled in a way that allows for data contamination or tampering, the evidence may be suppressed.

​

The "State Actor" Doctrine

If law enforcement coordinated with or encouraged the actions of a vigilante like Dustin Lampros, that vigilante may be legally deemed a "state actor." This means they are bound by the Fourth Amendment and the Florida Constitution. If they violated your rights during their "investigation," the entire case could be dismissed.

​​

3. The "Fantasy vs. Reality" Defense

A core pillar of our defense is the premise that online communication is often a performance, not a plan. This is frequently referred to as the "Keyboard-to-Screen" effect.

• The Catfish Effect: In digital environments, individuals often engage in "identity play." We utilize forensic psychologists to explain to juries that these chats can be a form of "digital roleplay" where neither party truly intends a physical encounter.

• Deception Expectation: Many users operate under the assumption that the other party is "catfishing" them. If a defendant believed they were interacting with an adult roleplaying a fantasy, they lacked the specific intentrequired by Florida law.

​

Digital Delusions: Why Online Chat Is Often Fantasy, Not Criminal Intent

In the eyes of a Florida jury, a transcript of a lurid online conversation can look like a blueprint for a crime. However, any experienced defense attorney knows that the digital world operates on a different psychological plane than reality. To successfully defend against charges under Florida Statute § 847.0135, the defense must dismantle the prosecution’s narrative by proving that online communications are frequently an exercise in solipsistic fantasy rather than a manifestation of real-world intent.

​

The Online Disinhibition Effect: The Privacy of the Keyboard

The primary challenge in these cases is the "Digital Disconnect." The physical privacy, perceived anonymity, and immediate accessibility of a keyboard create a psychological vacuum. In this space, individuals often engage in what psychologists call the Online Disinhibition Effect.

For many, these chats are not a discussion of intended conduct but a form of digital gratification. The screen acts as a shield, allowing individuals to explore "edgy" or taboo personas they would never dream of inhabiting in their physical lives. Because the target is perceived as a "virtual entity" rather than a flesh-and-blood human, the ethical boundaries that govern in-person interactions often evaporate.

​

Leveraging Experts in Online Deception and Dating Behavior

To bridge this gap for a jury, it is essential to engage a Forensic Computer Psychologist or an expert in digital dating behaviors. These experts provide the scientific framework necessary to explain why a defendant might say something online that is entirely inconsistent with their offline character.

Key areas of expert testimony include:

• Deception as a Digital Norm: Studies show that a vast majority of people alter their online image—whether it is their age, weight, or professional status. In online chat rooms, deception is the baseline, not the exception.

• The "Fantasy Loop": Experts can testify that for many defendants, the goal is the conversation itself, not a physical meeting. The chat provides a dopamine hit that ends the moment the computer is shut down.

​​

The "Catfish" Phenomenon and the Absence of Intent

Central to a strong defense is the concept of Catfishing. While the term has entered the cultural zeitgeist through documentaries and MTV series, its legal implications are profound.

What is Catfishing? According to cybersecurity firm Fortinet, catfishing occurs when a person steals information and images to create a entirely fictional identity. This can include falsifying a complete persona—image, location, date of birth, and occupation—to trick a target into an online association.

The "Catfish" defense is vital for one specific reason: The perpetrator of a catfish relationship generally does not intend to meet the target in person. In a Florida solicitation or "traveling" case, the prosecution must prove specific intent. If the defense can demonstrate that the interaction was a "catfish" scenario—where both parties were operating under layers of deception—it becomes much harder for the State to prove that the defendant truly intended to commit a lewd act with a minor. The "relationship" was built on a foundation of lies, and in many cases, the defendant’s arrival at a location was motivated by curiosity or a desire to unmask the deception rather than to commit a crime.

​

Fantasy vs. Reality: A Comparative Framework

Digital Fantasy Indicators vs. Real-World Criminal Intent

• Use of hyperbolic or "scripted" sexual language vs. Practical logistical planning and timing

• Lack of preparation (no condoms, no gifts, no travel funds) vs. Possession of items discussed in chat logs

• History of "ghosting" or never following through on plans vs. Overt acts taken to facilitate a physical meeting

• Belief that the partner is also "playing a role vs. "Knowledge and verification of the victim's "age"

 

Bringing the Truth to the Jury

From voir dire to the final closing argument, the defense must force the jury to accept a difficult premise: The words on the page do not always mean what they appear to mean. Most jurors have experienced some form of online deception, whether it’s a filtered profile picture or a "white lie" on a dating app. By scaling that common experience up to the level of the defendant’s charges, we can move the jury away from a knee-jerk emotional reaction and toward a logical understanding of digital roleplay. The goal is to prove that while the chats may be lurid or even offensive, they are ultimately a product of a virtual world that has no bearing on the defendant’s actual intent to cause harm in the real one.

​​

4. Florida-Specific Defense Strategies: Entrapment

Florida law provides a unique framework for entrapment defenses under F.S. § 777.201.

F.S. § 777.201 focuses on whether the defendant was predisposed to the crime or if the "catcher" induced it.

Objective Florida Entrapment focuses on whether the vigilante's methods were so egregious that they violate Due Process.

If a social media vigilante group used extreme psychological pressure, coercion, or manufactured a crime in an otherwise law-abiding person, an entrapment defense is highly viable.

​

CHECKLIST OF DEFENSE STRATEGIES

​

CHALLENGE THE RELIABILITY OF THE EVIDENCE:

• Consider the foundational requirements of the chat logs, emails, or text messages

• Consider the foundational requirements of the defendant’s post-arrest statements

• LOOK FOR FOURTH AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS

• ETRAPMENT

• VIGILANTES?

• ALIBI EVIDENCE

• IDENTITY

• INSANITY OR DIMINISHED CAPACITY

• PROOF OF LACK OF INTENT

• SUBJECTIVE—Statements of the accused

• OBJECTIVE – Studies of online behaviors

​

5. Negotiating the "Win": Avoiding the Registry

In many Florida cases, a "win" is defined by avoiding the catastrophic consequences of the Sex Offender Registry. We focus on:

• Charge Reduction: Negotiating a second-degree felony down to a non-registerable offense, such as Culpable Negligence or specific misdemeanor counts.

• Lack of Propensity Testing: Utilizing forensic tools like the MMPI or STATIC-2007 to prove the defendant does not share the psychological traits of a sexual predator. This supports the argument that the incident was a one-time "fantasy" lapse rather than a danger to society.

​

Protect Your Future

If you have been targeted by a social media sting or are facing charges under F.S. § 847.0135, do not wait for the "social media death penalty" to destroy your life.

​

Click here to email Alan Bernstein Law for a Free Confidential Consultation