A Florida appeals court has cleared the way for the state to continue its prosecution of Keith John Gadbois, reversing a lower court’s decision that had previously dismissed a prostitution-related charge on the grounds of entrapment.
In a ruling issued on February 27, 2026, the Sixth District Court of Appeal found that a trial judge erred by taking the case away from a jury. The dispute centers on an undercover operation conducted by the Orange County Sheriff’s Office along South Orange Blossom Trail, a location authorities identified as a high-activity area for prostitution.
The Roadside Encounter
According to court documents, an undercover agent was posing as a prostitute near a hotel when Gadbois pulled his vehicle off the main road and into the parking lot. What happened next remains a point of contention between the two parties.
The agent testified that Gadbois initiated the interaction by asking if police were “bothering her.” She claimed she then asked him if he “wanted to party,” to which he allegedly responded that he needed to shower after work. The agent reportedly offered her hotel room for that purpose and quoted him a price, which she testified Gadbois agreed to before driving away to get cash.
Gadbois provided a different account in his motion to dismiss. He stated under oath that he “did not initiate any criminal activity nor did he initiate any communication with” the agent. He argued the “sting” operation constituted subjective entrapment, claiming the agent approached his vehicle “uninvited and unprompted” during his commute home.
The Legal Turning Point
Under Florida law, subjective entrapment occurs when law enforcement uses persuasion or inducement that creates a “substantial risk” that a person not otherwise predisposed to commit a crime will do so. While a judge can dismiss a case if the facts are undisputed, the appellate court ruled that this was not the case here.
Writing for the court, Judge Nardella noted that “differing conclusions can be drawn from their conversation and the context in which it took place.” The court emphasized that simply providing an opportunity to commit a crime does not automatically equal entrapment.
“Inducement entails some semblance of ‘arm-twisting,’ pleading, or coercive tactics,” the opinion stated, citing previous legal precedents. “A mere invitation under false pretenses is not synonymous with inducement.”
Back to the Trial Court
The appellate court concluded that because the details of the interaction are in dispute—specifically whether the officer’s actions crossed the line from “creating an opportunity” to “improper inducement”—the issue must be decided by a jury rather than a judge.
“Accepting the undercover agent’s account of their interaction… a jury could conclude that the government merely created the opportunity,” the ruling stated.
The case, State of Florida v. Keith John Gadbois, has been remanded to the Orange County court for further proceedings.
The appeals court noted it was not deciding whether Gadbois is guilty of the underlying charge, but only that the dismissal based on entrapment was premature.
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox
