Opinion ID: 2360332
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Informer Privilege Flowers Precedent

Text: The comment to D.R.E. 509 notes that the Delaware rule of informer privilege follows, in part, the Superior Court's holding in State v. Flowers. [15] In Flowers, a confidential informer introduced an undercover police officer to the defendant. The police officer then purchased heroin from the defendant. The defendant asserted an alibi defense and argued that identification of the informer would show that the defendant was not present at the drug transaction. The Superior Court determined that where the State claims that the identity of an informer is privileged, the trial court must examine, in detail and case-by-case, whether the informer's identity should be disclosed. [16] The Superior Court in Flowers relied upon Roviaro v. United States, [17] which recognized the government's privilege to withhold the identity of informers. In that case, the United States Supreme Court determined no fixed rule with respect to disclosure is justifiable. [18] Instead, the Supreme Court held, the trial court must balance the public interest in protecting the flow of information against the individual's right to prepare his defense. [19] The trial court must also consider particular circumstances of each case, including the crime with which the defendant has been charged, the possible defenses, the possible significance of the informer's testimony and any other relevant factors. [20] In Flowers, the Superior Court described four situations in which the issue of disclosing the informer's identity arises: (1) the informer was merely used to establish probable cause for a search; (2) the informer witnessed the criminal act; (3) the informer participated in, but was not a party to, the illegal transaction; and (4) the informer was an actual party to the illegal transaction. [21] In Flowers, the Superior Court noted that while the privilege is generally protected in the first situation [22] and disclosure is usually required in the fourth situation, [23] there is no general rule for the second and third situations  where the informer witnessed the criminal act or participated in the illegal transaction. [24] In the second and third scenarios, disclosure of the informer's identity is required only if the trial judge determines that the informer's testimony is material to the defense. [25] In Flowers, as in Butcher's case, where the informer put the police officers in contact with the defendant and was present during the transaction, the Superior Court properly ordered two appropriate procedures. First, the State was required to submit affidavits, which would be sealed, to support the State's argument that the informer's identity should not be disclosed. Second, the State was required to produce the informer for an in camera examination by the trial judge, so that the trial judge could determine whether disclosure of the informer's identity would materially aid the defense. [26]