Online Sting Operations in Michigan: The Statutes and the Entrapment Test

In an online sting, a police officer or other adult communicates in the role of a minor. Michigan law allows charges in that situation because several statutes are written to cover a person the accused believes is a minor, and because attempt does not depend on a real child existing.^[1][2][3] Whether the police went too far is a separate question, called entrapment, that a judge decides by looking at what the police did.^[4][6]

This page explains those two legal points: the statutory basis for a charge, and the entrapment test as the Michigan Supreme Court clarified it in People v Jade. It does not describe investigative methods. The individual offenses and their penalties have their own pages, which are linked below.

Why can a charge be filed when no child was involved?

The answer is in the wording of each statute. None of the provisions below makes an actual minor's presence the only route to a charge.

Statute	Wording or holding that covers a person posing as a minor
Accosting a child, MCL 750.145a	Applies to "an individual whom he or she believes is a child less than 16 years of age"[1]
Use of the internet or a computer, MCL 750.145d	Covers a victim or intended victim who "is a minor or is believed by that person to be a minor"[2]
Child sexually abusive activity, MCL 750.145c(2)	Reaches a person who attempts or prepares to arrange for the activity; the Court of Appeals held in People v Thousand that because the statute requires only mere preparation, it was not legally significant that the person the defendant believed to be a minor was an adult deputy. The Supreme Court denied leave to appeal from that part of the decision and did not review it[8][9][10]
Disseminating sexually explicit matter to a minor, MCL 722.675	The Supreme Court held in People v Thousand (2001) that impossibility is not relevant to whether a defendant has committed attempt, so the non-existence of a minor victim did not give rise to a viable defense to a charge of attempted dissemination[3][10]

The dissemination example shows the limit of the rule as well as its reach. The Supreme Court noted in Thousand that the defendant could not be convicted of the completed dissemination offense, because the material was allegedly sent to an adult; the charge it reinstated was attempt.^[10] In the same opinion the Court affirmed the dismissal of a third charge, solicitation to commit third-degree criminal sexual conduct, because there was no evidence that the defendant had solicited another person to commit a felony.^[10] Thousand was a pretrial ruling on which charges could go forward, not a finding of guilt.^[10]

Under MCL 750.145d, the Court of Appeals has also held that each online communication made with the required intent can be charged separately, and that the statute does not punish "words alone" but communication with the specific intent to make the perceived minor the victim of a listed crime.^[11]

Each offense is explained in full at Accosting a child, Using a computer to commit a crime, Child sexually abusive material and Disseminating sexually explicit matter to minors.

Which court can hear the case?

A violation of MCL 750.145d occurs if the communication originates in Michigan, is intended to terminate in Michigan, or is intended to terminate with a person who is in Michigan, and it may be prosecuted in any jurisdiction where the communication originated or terminated.^[12] Michigan's general jurisdiction statute also reaches an offense committed outside the state where "an employee or agent of a governmental unit posing as a victim" resides in or is located in Michigan when the offense is committed.^[13]

Federal law has its own enticement statute, which applies to using a facility of interstate commerce to persuade, induce, entice or coerce a person under 18 to engage in criminal sexual activity, or attempting to do so.^[14] See Federal enticement of a minor.

What is entrapment under Michigan law?

Michigan applies a two-prong, modified objective test. A defendant is entitled to dismissal of the charges if either prong is satisfied.^[15] The two prongs are:

1. Unlawful inducement. The police engaged in impermissible conduct that would induce a law-abiding person to commit a crime in similar circumstances.^[4]
2. Reprehensible conduct. The police engaged in conduct so reprehensible that it cannot be tolerated.^[4]

Both prongs look at the actions of law enforcement. In the words of the Supreme Court, entrapment law "must focus on law enforcement's conduct rather than a defendant's innocence or predisposition."^[15]

The inducement prong

Under this prong the trial court must ask whether the police conduct "went beyond merely offering an opportunity to commit the charged offense" and whether it could have induced a hypothetical law-abiding person to commit an offense that person was not otherwise ready and willing to commit.^[16] The inquiry is objective and focuses on a hypothetical person.^[16] Jade also clarified that a court must consider the defendant's readiness and willingness to commit the charged crime, but that "ready and willing" is not an added element: it is a way of asking whether the cause of the offense came from law enforcement rather than from the defendant.^[5]

Courts may weigh a non-exhaustive list of twelve factors drawn from People v Johnson.^[17] They include:

• whether there were appeals to the defendant's sympathy as a friend;^[17]
• whether there were inducements that would make the commission of a crime unusually attractive to a hypothetical law-abiding citizen;^[17]
• whether there were offers of excessive consideration or other enticement;^[17]
• whether, and to what extent, any government pressure existed;^[17]
• whether there were government procedures that tended to escalate the criminal culpability of the defendant;^[17]
• whether the investigation was targeted.^[17]

The reprehensible-conduct prong

This prong is met when the police engage in conduct so reprehensible that it cannot be tolerated. Police conduct must be more reprehensible under this prong than under the inducement prong, but the prong may be met without regard to whether the conduct caused the offense.^[18]

Escalation

People v Jade also addressed escalation. Where the record reflects a defendant's willingness to commit a lesser offense that was not charged, and that offense is materially less serious than the one charged, the trial court must consider whether law enforcement escalated the defendant's conduct from the lesser offense to the more serious charged offense.^[19]

The Court described escalation as present whenever police conduct transforms a suspect's apparent willingness to commit a less serious offense into exposure for a more serious, different-order offense. It also said there is no escalation amounting to entrapment when police simply give a suspect another opportunity to commit the same offense the suspect previously committed.^[19]

Jade arose from a law enforcement sting operation that led to a charge of accosting a child for immoral purposes.^[5] The Supreme Court did not decide whether the defendant was entrapped.^[5] It vacated the Court of Appeals opinion and sent the case back to the trial court to consider the escalatory nature of the police conduct, including the increase in offense and punishment between the crime the defendant was ready and willing to commit and the crimes charged.^[7]

Who decides, and how?

1. The judge decides, not the jury. Entrapment is adjudicated at an evidentiary hearing before the trial court, outside the jury's presence.^[6][20]
2. The defendant has the burden. The defendant must prove entrapment by a preponderance of the evidence.^[6]
3. No admission is needed. The defendant need not admit the charged crime to assert the defense.^[20]
4. Hearing testimony has limited later use. Testimony at the entrapment hearing is inadmissible in the prosecution's case-in-chief for any purpose except impeachment.^[20]
5. The result is dismissal. A defendant who satisfies either prong is entitled to dismissal of the charges.^[15]

Because entrapment turns on police conduct and is "irrelevant to his guilt or innocence," in the Court's words, it is a different kind of issue from the defenses a jury hears at trial.^[20] Those are surveyed in Defenses to sex crime charges, and the entrapment defense has its own page at The entrapment defense in sex stings.

What people get wrong

"It cannot be a crime if there was no real child." MCL 750.145a and 750.145d use "believes" and "believed," and the Supreme Court has held that impossibility is not a defense to a charge of attempt.^[1][2][10]

"Any undercover operation is entrapment." The inducement prong asks whether police went beyond merely offering an opportunity to commit the charged offense.^[16]

"Entrapment depends on whether the defendant was already inclined to do it." Michigan's test is objective and focuses on police conduct rather than the defendant's predisposition.^[15] Readiness and willingness to commit the charged crime is considered under the inducement prong, but as part of an objective inquiry into what caused the offense.^[5]

"The jury will decide if it was entrapment." The trial judge decides, at a separate hearing.^[6]

"An article from 2024 or 2025 states the current rule." The Supreme Court clarified the test on July 31, 2026 and vacated the Court of Appeals opinion in the same case.^[5][7] As of October 2026, the decision does not yet have a Michigan Reports page citation.^[4]

A person who has been contacted by police or charged after an online investigation can find general, non-case-specific information in Accused of a sex crime: first steps and Do you need a lawyer before charges?. The right to appointed counsel is covered in the sister guide at The right to a lawyer. Parents concerned about an adult contacting a child online can report it through the routes in Options for reporting.