The NBC program that made these operations famous stopped producing new episodes years ago. The tactic did not stop. Undercover decoy operations remain a routine part of how Michigan agencies build cases under MCL 750.145a and MCL 750.145d, and the men charged in them are usually people with no prior record who never met anyone.
This page is about the operations themselves and the one defense built specifically for them: entrapment.
How a Michigan Sting Actually Runs
An officer creates a profile — on a dating app, a social platform, or a chat service — usually presenting as an adult, because most platforms require adult ages to register. Conversation begins. At some point the decoy discloses an age under 16. What happens next is the entire case: whether the conversation ends, and if it does not, who drives it toward a meeting and sexual content, and how hard.
Those transcripts are the evidence. There are rarely eyewitnesses, rarely physical evidence, and often no meeting. The case is the chat log, the device, and the officer's account of the operation.
Why “She Wasn't Real” Fails
People assume the absence of an actual child ends the case. It does not. MCL 750.145a expressly reaches solicitation of “an individual whom he or she believes is a child less than 16 years of age.” And in People v. Thousand, 465 Mich 149 (2001) — itself a decoy case, where a deputy posed online as a 14-year-old — the Michigan Supreme Court held that impossibility is not a defense to an attempt charge in this state.
So the real question is not whether the child existed. It is whether the government created the crime.
Entrapment in Michigan: A Hearing, Not a Jury Argument
Michigan is not a predisposition state. It applies a modified objective test, which examines the conduct of the police rather than the defendant's character or criminal history. That distinction matters enormously to a client with no record and to one with a record alike, because the analysis focuses on what the officers did.
The Two Prongs
Under People v. Juillet, 439 Mich 34 (1991), and People v. Johnson, 466 Mich 491 (2002), entrapment exists if either is shown:
- the police engaged in impermissible conduct that would induce an otherwise law-abiding person to commit the crime in similar circumstances; or
- the police engaged in conduct so reprehensible that it cannot be tolerated.
Who Decides, and What You Must Prove
Entrapment is decided by the judge, not the jury. Under People v. D'Angelo, 401 Mich 167 (1977), the trial court holds a separate evidentiary hearing outside the jury's presence, and the defendant bears the burden of proving entrapment by a preponderance of the evidence.
That has a practical consequence people rarely appreciate: a successful entrapment defense ends the case before a jury ever hears it. It also means the hearing is the main event, and it is won with the transcript, the operation's internal rules, and the officer's testimony about how the contact was initiated and sustained.
What Tends to Matter at That Hearing
- Who initiated contact, and who first introduced sexual content.
- How the age was disclosed, and what happened in the messages immediately after.
- Whether the decoy repeatedly re-engaged someone who disengaged, deflected, or stopped responding.
- Whether appeals to sympathy, loneliness, or friendship were used as leverage.
- Whether the profile itself misrepresented an adult age at registration, on a platform that requires it.
- Whether the operation followed its own written protocols.
Not every aggressive operation is entrapment, and the standard is demanding. But these operations are run by people working from scripts, and scripts get departed from.
The Digital Evidence Fight
Separate from entrapment, decoy cases turn on the integrity of the record:
- Is the log complete? Selected excerpts read very differently from the full exchange, including deleted or unpreserved messages.
- Was the device search lawful, and was the warrant's scope respected?
- Whose account, whose device, whose hands? Attribution is an assumption that has to be proven.
- What did the platform actually show about the decoy's stated age at each stage?
If You Have Been Contacted or Arrested
Do not attempt to explain the conversation to investigators, and do not delete anything — deletion creates a second problem and rarely removes the first. Preserve the device. Then get counsel involved before the interview, not after. See what Miranda actually protects.
Attorney Shawn Haff defends internet sting and solicitation cases across West Michigan. Call 616-438-6719 for a confidential free consultation.
Related Sting Operation Defense Pages
- Accosting a minor (MCL 750.145a)
- Solicitation of a minor — full charge overview.
- Criminal sexual conduct (CSC)