Source: https://www.rcfp.org/open-government-sections/9-confidential-informants/
Timestamp: 2020-03-28 11:28:47
Document Index: 619384273

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 6254', '§ 1041', '§ 24', '§ 24', '§ 24', '§ 24', '§ 119', '§ 72', '§ 44', '§ 804', '§ 4', '§ 13', '§ 25', '§ 552', '§ 14', '§ 132', '§ 44', '§ 149', '§ 67', '§ 63', '§ 317', '§ 2', '§ 19']

9. Confidential informants Archives - The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
Rule 3.9 of the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure protects the identity of confidential informants when sworn testimony is taken to support the issuance of a search warrant. In addition, the final order in Deutcsh permits redaction of witness identification from arrest reports, Birmingham News Co. v. Deutcsh, CV 85-504-132 JDC (Cir. Ct. of Jefferson County, Ala., Equity Div., Aug. 19, 1986) (consent order), and the decision in Stone permits closure of records regarding pending criminal investigations and recorded information received by a public officer in confidence, Stone v. Consolidated Publishing Co., 404 So. 2d 678 (Ala. 1981).
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).
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. 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).
Information revealing the identity of confidential informants or sources is exempt from the provisions of Chapter 119. Fla. Stat. § 119.07(3)(c) (2008). See City of St. Petersburg v. Rommie ex rel. Dillinger, 719 So. 2d (Fla. 2d. DCA 1998) (after in camera inspection of records and disclosure of informant's identity in the trial court, access to records was granted); Salcines v. Tampa Television, 454 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (the exemption provided by section 119.07(3)(c), protects from the disclosure requirement information revealing the identity of confidential informants or sources regardless of whether the informants or sources are no longer active or any have, through other sources, been identified as such); John Doe v. State of Fla., 901 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (prohibiting state from releasing unredacted documents that might identify petitioner as source in criminal investigation).
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).
Inspection of records, even by a person in interest, that would result in the disclosure of the identity of a confidential information is prohibited. § 4-351(b)(4); see also 4-332(d)(4). But, protecting the identity of a confidential source is not based on the purpose of preventing potential harm to the informant. “Rather, the purpose of the exception is to assist law enforcement officials in gathering information by ensuring reluctant sources that their identities would not be disclosed.” Bowen v. Davison, 135 Md. App. 152, 164 (2000). Accordingly, there must be an express or implied assurance of confidentiality to the informant. Id. at 164
Witness statements may be withheld (indefinitely) under exemption (f) if their release would create a grave risk of directly or indirectly identifying a private citizen who volunteers as a witness. Globe Newspaper Co. v. Boston Retirement Board, 388 Mass. 427, 438 (1983) (defining “identifying details” and “grave risk of indirect identification”). Troublingly, the Supervisor of Public Records has opined, without citation, that if a requester “is familiar with the individuals who were involved in the incident(s) …, then the department may withhold the entire record because it would not be possible … to redact the report in a manner as to avoid indirect identification of the voluntary witness and complainant.” “Guide to Massachusetts Public Records Law” (Sec’y of State, rev. March 2009), at 16.
Data identifying an informant can be withheld if the agency determines that disclosure would threaten the informant’s safety. Minn. Stat. § 13.82, subd. 17(c).
Records that would reveal the identity of informants fall under the definition of “investigative report.” See N.4.a and N.4.b above. § 25-61-3(f)(ii).
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. NMSA 1978 § 14-2-1(D)(2)(b).
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).
ORS 192.355(4) (formerly192.502(4)) exempts “[i]Information submitted to a public body in confidence and not otherwise required by law to be submitted, where such information should reasonably be considered confidential, the public body has obliged itself in good faith not to disclose the information, and when the public interest would suffer by the disclosure.”
65 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 67.708(b)(16)(iii) exempts “[a] record that includes the identity of a confidential source.”
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).
Information that would identify a confidential informant must be deleted from a public record before disclosure. Wis. Stat. § 19.36(8).