Opinion ID: 1910407
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Identification of the Citizen Informant

Text: Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the government, as Peay dictates, 597 A.2d at 1320, we reject appellant's argument that the citizen informant in this case was not sufficiently identified. Because the informant gave his name, address, and telephone number, the trial court could and did reasonably find that the informant was anything . . . but anonymous. This court can overturn that finding only if it was clearly erroneous or unsupported by the evidence, which it plainly was not. See D.C.Code § 17-305(a) (2001). Appellant argues nevertheless that the citizen should not enjoy the presumptive reliability of an identified informant because he failed to provide enough information to make him subject to criminal liability. He contends, in particular, that the informant was anonymous because he provided a common last name (Williams), his address lacked an apartment number, and he gave two different telephone numbers (see note 3, supra ). While these assertions may be true, we are satisfied that there was enough information in the record to enable the court to conclude that the informant was adequately identified and thus should enjoy the presumptive reliability of his tip, especially when we consider that significant details were corroborated by the officer's personal observation. Appellant relies mainly on United States v. Fisher, 145 F.Supp.2d 853 (E.D.Mich. 2001), for the proposition that an identified informant does not always entitle an officer presumptively to rely on an informant's tip. In Fisher a caller, identifying himself as Mr. Johnson, reported to the police that an abducted woman was being held at a motel. The court ruled that this informant was anonymous because the tip could not be traced to the informant and came from a cell phone which could not be identified, and that its content was questionable because the officers discovered nothing to corroborate the tip. Id. at 859. In the present case, by contrast, the informant gave a name, an address, and a telephone number (indeed, the trial court specifically noted that the contact information could be traced), and the information he provided was corroborated. Fisher is thus of no help to appellant.