The vice cop dressed up as a hooker who propositions you doesn't really want to have sex with you for money. Neither did the vice cop pretending to be a john who approaches a streetwalker. That will be cold comfort for either the john or the prostitute as they sit in jail.

Similarly, whether this particular vice officer was subjectively "alarmed" or not isn't the standard. The conduct should be viewed — notwithstanding that news report of the California appellate decision you cited, Jeralyn, which I think is wrong if it holds what the press account says it did — from a hypothetical objective outsider's standard.  Otherwise, someone's extreme homophobia may become the basis for a disorderly conduct conviction just because someone else entered the bathroom, and no vice officer (who had, after all, a hidden Glock 9mm) could ever prove up much of any disorderly conduct violation.

Sgt. Karsnia's report is detailed quite literally down to the minute.  I would expect him to testify, for example, that when he wrote in the report that Craig stood three feet from his stall gazing intermittently into it, making eye contact with Karsnia, for about two minutes, that that was based on Karsnia checking his wristwatch, and that the margin of error is something like 5 seconds.  There's no particular reason a jury would not believe that.  I haven't seen him in person, but I can infer from the way his report is written that he has considerable experience both in the field and from the witness stand. The stuff about Craig glancing down at his fingers intermittently, for example, is the sort of detail written by an officer who knows that the peeping statute requires that the peeping be done "surreptitiously," and who expects to be cross-examined on that point among many others.

Entrapment is an affirmative defense. An affirmative defense is one in which a defendant admits doing the criminal act but seeks to justify, excuse, or mitigate the act. It is not available to a defendant who denies any wrongdoing. A defendant must admit to having engaged in the proscribed conduct to be entitled to an entrapment instruction, however, he or she need not plead guilty in order to assert an entrapment defense.

In MN, I didn't find any cases regarding Matthews, but I did find State v. Hage, 595 N.W.2d 200, 206 (Minn. 1999) and State v. Niska, 514 N.W.2d 260, 264 (Minn. 1994, both decided after Matthews:

When raising the "justification defenses" of self-defense, entrapment, and duress, a defendant is required to make a prima facie showing of the defense, with the burden of persuasion then shifting to the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the lack of the defense.

Specifically, we stated that "with all these defenses, the defendant admits an intent to do the prohibited act, but inextricably bound up with that intent is a justificatory motive.

The prosecutor, who drafted the mail-in plea agreement, forgot to include that right. Craig never says, I understand I have the right to be represented by counsel and I waive that right.

It's not enough for the defendant to say he is proceeding without counsel. He must be advised of his right to counsel and waive that right. (State v. Vieburg, 404 N.W.2d 312, 314 (Minn. App. 1987.)

An accused has the right to withdraw his plea of guilty upon establishing a denial of his right to counsel....This conforms with A.B.A. standards. See ABA Standards Relating to Pleas of Guilty (Approved Draft, 1968), § 2.1. There is no indication on the record that Vieburg was ever advised of his right to counsel. Not only must a defendant be informed of his right to counsel before pleading guilty, he must make a knowing and intelligent waiver of that right on the record. Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S. Ct. 1709, 23 L. Ed. 2d 274 (1973). We cannot presume that Vieburg was adequately advised and understood his rights. See State v. Nordstrom, 331 N.W.2d 901, 904 (Minn. 1983).

It may be that Craig submitted another form, like Minn. Form 11, that advised him of the right and included a waiver. But, no one has reported that.

Also see Rule 15.05:

Rule 15.01 of the MN Rules of Criminal Procedure, applicable to misdemeanor pleas:

   Before the court accepts a plea of guilty to any offense punishable upon conviction by incarceration, any plea agreement shall be explained in open court. The defendant shall then be questioned by the court or counsel in substance as follows: ....3. Whether the defendant knows there is a right to the assistance of counsel at every stage of the proceedings and that counsel will be appointed for a defendant unable to afford counsel.

  Engaging in some armchair psychology, it is perhaps unsurprising that someone perhaps living a "double life" would vacillate between: I didn't do anything;  oh, ok, I'll plead and get it over with;  no, I want to take may plea back because I didn't do anything; and also between: I'm not resigning; oK, I'll resign;  No, I only said I intend to resign; OK I'll resign unless ...