Entrapment and Government Misconduct in Child Pornography Cases

In certain child pornography cases, the strongest defense may not be about what was found—it may be about how it was found. When law enforcement steps outside the bounds of proper conduct or deliberately creates the conditions for a crime to occur, the defense of entrapment or government misconduct may apply.

Entrapment occurs when police or federal agents persuade or pressure someone into committing a crime they otherwise would not have committed. In child pornography investigations, this can involve undercover officers posing as minors or using sting operations that involve illegal material.

For entrapment to be a valid defense in New Jersey, the accused must show two things:

1. That the idea for the offense came from law enforcement—not from the accused.

2. That the accused was not otherwise predisposed to commit the crime.

This defense is especially relevant in online sting operations. For example, if an undercover agent contacts someone in a chat room, claims to be underage, and repeatedly pushes them to engage or view illegal content, that may be considered entrapment—especially if the accused shows hesitation or initially refuses.

However, simply being given an opportunity to commit a crime is not enough. Courts will look closely at the person’s conduct, including chat logs, download history, and prior behavior, to determine whether they were predisposed to commit the offense or were coerced into it.

Government misconduct is a broader category. It can include actions like:

• Falsifying evidence

• Lying to obtain a search warrant

• Conducting illegal surveillance

• Exceeding the scope of a warrant

• Mishandling or tampering with digital evidence

For instance, if investigators accessed private data without a warrant or fabricated the basis for a warrant, the defense can seek to have the evidence thrown out under the exclusionary rule. Similarly, if agents misrepresented facts in a report or used improper tactics during interrogation, the defense may argue that constitutional rights were violated.

Judges take misconduct by law enforcement seriously. If the defense can prove that evidence was obtained through illegal or deceptive means, the court may suppress it—meaning it cannot be used at trial. In some cases, that leads to a full dismissal of the charges.

It’s important to note that both entrapment and misconduct defenses require careful legal strategy and evidence gathering. Reviewing online communications, the timing and nature of government contact, and how the investigation was handled are essential steps.

At the Law Office of Matthew V. Portella, LLC, we examine every detail of your case to determine if your constitutional rights were violated. If law enforcement crossed the line, we will fight to hold them accountable and push to have the evidence suppressed. Contact us today for a confidential consultation to discuss your options and begin protecting your future.