Source: https://www.rcfp.org/open-government-sections/9-confidential-informants/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 12:02:04+00:00

Document:
Law enforcement records may be withheld from disclosure under the Public Records Act to the extent that they could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source. AS 40.25.120(6)(D).
“A record of a communication between a person submitting a report of criminal activity to a silent witness, crime stopper or operation game thief program . . . is not a public record.” A.R.S. § 12-2312.
Statements of confidential informants contained in records for closed investigations are subject to the FOIA. McCambridge v. City of Little Rock, 298 Ark. 219, 766 S.W.2d 909 (1989). The Arkansas Supreme Court has also indicated that, absent legislative action, the identities of confidential informants from closed investigations should not be protected. Martin v. Musteen, 303 Ark. 656, 799 S.W.2d 540 (1990). The Attorney General has opined that any information relating to a confidential informant must be disclosed if the investigation is closed. Ark. Op. Att’y Gen. No. 2006-158.
Exempt. The identity of confidential informants and any statements made by them are expressly exempt from disclosure under Section 6254(f) of the CPRA. Cal. Gov’t Code § 6254(f). California Evidence Code Section 1041 also protects the identity of confidential informants upon a proper showing. Cal. Evid. Code § 1041.
Pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-72-204(2)(d), a custodian shall deny the right of inspection of any materials received, made, or kept by a witness protection board, the department of public safety, or a prosecuting attorney that are confidential pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-33.5-106.5. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-33.5-106.5(2)(a) provides that any materials received, made, or kept by a witness protection board, the department, or a prosecuting attorney concerning a witness protection matter shall be confidential.
Confidential informants' identities and statements are subject to withholding if their disclosure may harm an ongoing investigation or cause other injury to the public interest. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-72-305(5). See Pretash v. City of Leadville, 715 P.2d 1272 (Colo. App. 1985).
OIP has determined that the identity of confidential informants should not be disclosed, and if such information is part of investigation records that otherwise are subject to disclosure, information that reveals the identity of confidential informants should be segregated from the records disclosed. Disclosure of Closed Police Investigation Reports, OIP Op. Ltr. No. 95-21 (Aug. 28, 1995).
Information in an investigatory record compiled for law enforcement that would disclose the identity of a confidential source is exempt from disclosure. Idaho Code § 72-124(1)(d).
Closed, pursuant to 5 ILCS 140/7(1)(d)(iv).
Indiana Code Section 4-2-7-8 provides that the identity of any individual who discloses in good faith to the inspector general information alleging a violation of a state or federal statute, rule, regulation, or ordinance is confidential and may not be disclosed to anyone other than the governor, the staff of the office of the inspector general, or an authority to whom the investigation is subsequently referred or certified, unless: (1) the inspector general determines in writing disclosure is in the public interest, or the individual consents to disclosure. Otherwise, confidential informants would be encompassed by Indiana Code Section 5-14-3-4(b)(1), which gives law enforcement agencies discretion to provide or deny access to investigatory records.
The identity of an undercover agent or informant is confidential. K.S.A. 45-221(a)(5). The identity of a confidential informant may be deleted from open records kept by law enforcement personnel. Kan. Att’y Gen. Op. 1982-226.
Records revealing confidential informants may be closed. See Ky. Rev. Stat. 61.878(1)(h).
Exempt. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 44:3(A)(2). State of Louisiana v. Ramsey, 60 So.3d 36, 41 (La.App. 5th Cir. 2011) (any record that would tend to reveal the identity of confidential informant is exempt from the Act).
Information on the identity of a confidential source is generally confidential as an intelligence and investigative record. 16 M.R.S.A. § 804(4). In addition, Maine recognizes and informant identify privilege pursuant to M.R.Evid. 509(a). “[A]n `informant' is a person who has furnished information relating to or assisting in an investigation of a possible violation of law to . . . [a] law enforcement officer conducting an investigation. . . .” Id.; see also Dubois v. Dept. of Envtl. Prot., 2017 ME 224 ¶ 19, 174 A.3d 314, 319 (Me. 2017).
In Hyson v. Department of Correction, 205 Mich. App. 402, 521 N.W. 2d 841 (1994), the Court of Appeals held that the identities of confidential informants must be undisclosed because of the security risk posed to the informants.
Confidential informants are private criminal justice information and not available for public dissemination.
There is no law on point. To the extent information about a confidential informant is part of an investigative record it may be withheld.
Neither the Statute nor case law addresses this issue. Under Murray v. New Hampshire Div. of State Police, 154 N.H. 579 (2006); Lodge v. Knowlton, 118 N.H. 574 (1978), applying the six-prong test under the Freedom of Information Act for evaluating access to investigative files under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7), such records probably would not be disclosed.
The identities of confidential informants are not accessible under OPRA, because they are exempted as part of criminal investigatory files.
The identity of such an informant is not available to the public according to NMSA 1978 § 14-2-1(A)(4).
Confidential informants are not specifically addressed by statute but likely could be withheld as criminal intelligence or criminal investigative records. G.S. § 132-1.4(b).
Any information that would identify or provide a means of identifying a confidential informant, if the identity of the informant is not otherwise publicly known, is confidential. N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18.3(4).
The identities of confidential informants are not public record, nor is information that, if released, would tend to identify the informant. If releasing a record would endanger the safety of a confidential informant, the record is exempt as a confidential law enforcement investigatory record. Ohio Rev. Code §§ 149.43(A)(1)(h), 149.43(A)(2)(d).
May be withheld if the disclosure would interfere with a law enforcement agency under one of the law enforcement exemptions provided in SC FOIA. S.C. Code Ann. § 30-4-40(a)(3). One of those exemptions deals directly with confidential informants which allows an exemption for disclosure of information that “would disclose the identity of a confidential source, including a state, local, or foreign agency or authority or any private institution which furnished information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of a record or information compiled by criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation, by an agency conducting a lawful security intelligence investigation, or information furnished by a confidential source.” S.C. Code Ann. § 30-4-40(a)(3)(D).
Closed, presumably, in possession of law enforcement. SDCL §1-27-1.5 (5). However, possibly different as court document. Temporary sealing of affidavit in support of search warrant suggests possibility of disclosure. SDCL §23A-35-4.1.
No specific provision, so provisions concerning investigations would seem to cover this.
Generally the identity of confidential informants and his statements are exempt. See id. at 187; see also City of Carrollton v. Paxton, 490 S.W.3d 187, 200–02 (Tex. App.—Austin 2016, pet. denied).
Records that reasonably could be expected to disclose a confidential police informant’s identity are protected from public disclosure. Utah Code § 63G-2-305(10)(d).
Records dealing with the detection and investigation of crime are exempt from disclosure, including records that “could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source, including a state, local, or foreign agency or authority or any private institution which furnished information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of a record or information compiled by criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, information furnished by a confidential source.” 1 V.S.A. § 317(c)(5)(a)(iv).
The identity of any individual providing information about a crime or criminal activity under a promise of anonymity shall not be disclosed. Va. Code. Ann. § 2.2-3706.C.
May be exempt pursuant to the Public Records Act’s investigative record exemption, RCW 42.56.240(1).

References: § 12
 v. 
 v. 
 § 6254
 § 1041
 § 24
 § 24
 § 24
 § 24
 v. 
 § 72
 § 44
 v. 
 § 804
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 552
 § 14
 § 132
 § 44
 § 30
 § 30
 §1
 §23
 v. 
 § 63
 § 317
 § 2