Source: https://www.groselawfirm.com/2013/06/blog/328/
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 12:49:19+00:00

Document:
A reoccurring question is whether a person charged in a drug case has the right to know the identity of the informant used by the police to make the case. The answer turns, in part, on whether the informant is a “mere tipster” or actually participated in or witnessed a hand-to-hand transaction. This blog post addresses the situation when the informant participates in or witnesses the hand-to-hand transaction.
Although the United States Supreme Court has recognized there is an informer’s privilege, “[w]here the disclosure of an informer’s identity . . . is relevant and helpful to the defense of an accused, or is essential to a fair determination of a cause, the privilege must give way.” Roviaro v. U.S., 353 U.S. 53, 61 (1957). In Roviaro, the Supreme Court reversed a conviction where the informant and defendant were the sole participants, and the government refused to reveal the informant’s identity. Roviaro, accordingly, recognized a due process right to disclosure of the informant’s identity in these situations.
Rule 5(a)(1)(C), SCRCrimP requires the prosecution to disclose all evidence the state plans to introduce at trial and all evidence necessary for a defendant to prepare a defense. Disclosure is required within thirty days unless the state moves for a protective order pursuant to Rule 5(d)(1). Brady v. Maryland requires disclosure if the evidence is favorable to the accused. Every county in South Carolina has Administrative Case Management Orders that establish procedures and timeframes for complying with Rule 5 and Brady v. Maryland. Typically, disclosure is required at the initial appearance.
Prosecutors rely on two cases to avoid disclosing an informant’s identity. The first is U.S. v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622 (2002). Ruiz does not apply for at least two reasons. First, the informant in Ruiz was not a participant in a hand-to-hand transaction. Second, Ruiz involved a very narrow issue interpreting a procedural practice of the United States Attorney in California.
The second case prosecutors rely on to avoid disclosure of an informant’s identity is Hyman v. State, 397 S.C. 35, 723 S.E.2d 375 (2012). A close reading of Hyman, however, demonstrates (1) “the identity of the informant had been disclosed to the defense,” (2) the videotape of the drug transaction was “available for inspection by defense counsel,” and (3) still photographs made from the videotape has been given to the defendant. Prosecution reliance on Hyman, therefore, is misplaced.
Click these links to read Brady v. Maryland, State v. Hyman, Chief Justice Toal’s Memorandum to All Solicitors dated March 1, 2004, and Rule 3.4 of the South Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct.
Editorial Note: This post is the second in a two part series. Click here to read Informants in Drug Cases Part One: “Mere Tipsters,” which was released on Wednesday, June 19, 2013.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.