Short answer: Michigan sting operations put officers on dating apps posing first as adults, then claiming to be underage. Charges follow under MCL 750.145a and MCL 750.145d even though no real minor exists. Michigan uses an objective entrapment test decided by the judge, so a strong pretrial motion can end the case.
The Pattern Is Remarkably Consistent
A profile appears on a dating app or social platform listing an adult age. Conversation runs for days or weeks. At some point the account claims to be underage — sometimes ambiguously, sometimes long after sexual content has already been introduced by the officer. A meeting is arranged. Officers are waiting.
Multi-agency operations run periodically across Kent County and the surrounding areas, and they are designed to produce arrests in volume.
Michigan’s Entrapment Test Is Objective
This is the single most important thing to understand about these cases. Michigan does not ask whether this defendant was predisposed. It asks whether the police conduct would have induced a law-abiding person to commit the offence, or whether the conduct was reprehensible.
It is decided by the judge at an evidentiary hearing rather than by a jury — which means a well-prepared motion, built on the complete chat log rather than the excerpts in the report, can resolve a case before trial.
What the Full Log Usually Shows
- Who introduced the subject of age, and when relative to everything else
- Who introduced sexual content
- Whether the defendant hesitated, tried to disengage, or stopped replying — and whether the officer re-engaged
- Whether the stated age changed, and how clearly it was ever communicated
Prosecutors summarise. The defence reads every line in order with timestamps, because that record is what wins or loses these cases.
The Charges That Follow
Accosting or soliciting a child under MCL 750.145a is a felony carrying up to 4 years, with counts under MCL 750.145d for using a computer stacked on top. Where images changed hands, MCL 750.145c follows and is far more serious. Read more on internet sex crimes and stings and solicitation of a minor.
What the Prosecution Has to Prove
A sting case looks overwhelming because the messages are in writing. But the written record cuts both ways, and the elements are not trivial.
For accosting or soliciting under MCL 750.145a, the prosecution must prove an intent to induce a child to commit an immoral act or submit to sexual conduct. For the computer count under MCL 750.145d, it must prove the communication was made for the purpose of committing the underlying offence.
Intent is the weak point in a meaningful number of these files. Adults engage in fantasy role-play on adult platforms. Establishing that the conversation was fantasy rather than a plan — and that the arrival at a meeting point is equivocal rather than conclusive — is a real defence, not a technicality.
Device Searches Are Where Cases Are Won
Almost every sting case involves a seizure of phones, computers and storage. Those searches require warrants supported by probable cause and limited in scope, and in practice the warrants are frequently broader than the facts justify.
A warrant that authorises a search for evidence of one offence does not license an unlimited trawl through years of a person’s digital life. Where the scope was exceeded, or where the affidavit was thin, suppression is available — and in a case built entirely on device contents, suppression usually ends it.
What to Do If You Have Been Arrested at a Meet
Say nothing. The post-arrest interview in a sting case is where officers convert an ambiguous chat log into an admission of intent, and it is done in the car or the station within the first hour while you are frightened.
Do not consent to a search of your phone. Do not provide your passcode. Do not try to explain that it was not what it looked like — that explanation is exactly what the interview is designed to elicit, and it will be summarised in a way you do not control.
Then get the complete log. Not the excerpts in the report. The complete log, in order, with timestamps.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it entrapment if the officer contacted me first?
It is a strong starting point but not automatically decisive. Michigan asks whether the police conduct would have induced a law-abiding person to offend, which makes who initiated contact, who escalated, and how often the officer re-engaged all directly relevant.
What if I never actually met anyone?
Charges can still be brought — arranging the meeting and travelling can be enough. The absence of a meeting still matters, both to intent and at sentencing.
What if I stopped replying and they kept messaging me?
That is one of the strongest patterns for an entrapment motion. Repeated re-engagement after a defendant has disengaged goes directly to whether police conduct induced the offence.
Can I be charged federally for an online sting?
Yes, some of these cases are taken federally, where mandatory minimums apply. My practice is Michigan state court, and for a federal matter I will help you understand the exposure and connect you with federal counsel.
Do I have to give police my phone passcode?
You should not volunteer it. The law in this area is contested and evolving, and it is a question to put to a lawyer rather than to answer under pressure at the roadside or in an interview room.
Related Pages
Talk to Me Before You Talk to Anyone Else
If you are under investigation or have been charged, the decisions you make in the first days matter more than almost anything that happens later. Do not speak to police, do not contact the complainant, and do not delete anything. Call me at 616-438-6719 — the consultation is free and I answer 24/7, across Kent, Ottawa, Allegan, Barry, Ionia, Muskegon, Newaygo and Van Buren counties.