Opinion ID: 2763468
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Discovery Regarding the Informant

Text: 10 Defendant filed a pretrial motion seeking the name and last known contact information of the informant, “[a]ny documents that relate to or confirm the existence of the [informant],” and “[a]ll information relating to the [informant] contained within the Tulsa Police Department’s ALL STAR database, or any similar database.” R., Vol. 1 pt. 2 at 250. Acknowledging that the court could first review the information in camera before deciding whether defense counsel would have access, see Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 60–61 (1987), the motion claimed that discovery of these matters would serve two purposes: to provide evidence that the alleged informant did not exist and to develop evidence useful to his defense (if there really was an informant). His principal interest in the disclosure was to obtain evidence for a Franks hearing. We therefore first address his rights under that decision. To the extent that he sought disclosure for any other purpose, we then address his rights to disclosure under Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (1957).
Defendant complains that the district court did not comply with the mandate of Franks. In that case the Supreme Court considered whether the Fourth Amendment ever requires “that a defendant be permitted to attack the veracity of a warrant affidavit after the warrant has been issued and executed.” Franks, 438 U.S. at 164. The Court decided: [W]here the defendant makes a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, was included by the affiant in the warrant affidavit, and if the allegedly false statement is necessary to the finding of probable cause, the 11 Fourth Amendment requires that a hearing be held at the defendant’s request. Id. at 155–56 (emphasis added). It is not the veracity of the informant that is at issue, but only the veracity of the affiant. See id. at 171 (“The deliberate falsity or reckless disregard whose impeachment is permitted today is only that of the affiant, not of any nongovernmental informant.”). “Defendants must point out specifically the portion of the warrant affidavit that is claimed to be false . . . ,” United States v. Cooper, 654 F.3d 1104, 1128 (10th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted), and support their allegations with reliable witness statements or explain their absence, see id. This court has not yet decided whether there are ever circumstances in which a defendant making a Franks claim can obtain disclosure of the informant. See United States v. Schauble, 647 F.2d 113, 117 (10th Cir. 1981). But we have held that disclosure is not required if the defendant does not make the “substantial preliminary showing” required by Franks. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). In Schauble the defendant challenged the statement in a search-warrant affidavit that the informant said he had been “at the residence” in the prior 48 hours and had seen what he believed to be marijuana. Id. at 114‒15 (internal quotation marks omitted). To show that no informant had observed evidence of drugs in his house at the alleged time, the defendant presented two affidavits stating “that only one visitor came to the house in that time span and that this person came no further than the front porch, from where it is physically impossible to see inside the house because of a partition immediately inside the front door.” Id. at 117. As 12 further support for the claim that the affiant had not entered the residence, the defendant pointed out that a virtually identical affidavit by another officer for a different search had said that the informant had been “inside” the residence rather than just “at” it. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Nevertheless, we concluded that the defendant had not made the necessary showing because a defendant must show “that [the affiant] knew of or recklessly disregarded the informant’s inability to see what the informant claimed to see, not merely that the informant did not actually see it.” Id. (emphasis added). Defendant did not make an adequate evidentiary showing under Franks. The relevant part of his Franks motion states: There is no way that a “reliable confidential informant” of 16 years can go to a man’s home to visit him and not know the name of the man he went to visit. The affiant claims that the [informant] has been in contact with the defendant on multiple occasions. The affidavit states that the [informant] went to visit the defendant at his home and while inside the defendant’s home, the [informant] saw an amount of drugs packaged for distribution. If these allegations were true, the [informant] would have made a controlled buy. I’m sure if this defendant showed the [informant] drugs packaged for distribution, making a controlled buy would have been easy for the [informant] to do. At the very least the [informant] could have submitted an affidavit with a detailed description of the inside of the residence, stating where he saw the drugs to prove he has actually been inside the residence. There is no video, audio, or simultaneous surveillance or a controlled buy to validate the [informant’s] claims. Plus the affiant failed to do any type of investigation into the defendant. So the [informant] allegations have no factual confirmation. The [informant] couldn’t even tell the affiant the defendant’s name and the [informant] couldn’t tell the affiant what the defendant looks like. So with no name, no description, no controlled buy, no video, no audio, or any type of independent investigation by the affiant, the [informant’s] alleged allegations alone are clearly lacking the probable cause necessary to validate the warrant. . . . 13 It is unimaginable how a well-trained [informant] of 16 years can be meeting the defendant at his home, and still be unable to provide the affiant a description of the defendant. In fact it should be obvious that the [informant] has never seen the defendant before. If the [informant] can’t give a name, or description of the defendant, the [informant] doesn’t know the defendant, so how can the [informant] be meeting the defendant at his home? The defendant has his first and last name tattooed down the full length of both his forearms plus various other tattoos that are in open view. The defendant has very distinctive facial features that he can so easily be identified by, that for the [informant] to not be able to acknowledge any of it, it makes the [informant] claims completely unbelievable. The defendant has a bald head, and a big birth mark in the middle of his face, and the defendant has one of a kind ‘permanent’ diamond and gold dental work. So from a totality of all the defendant’s physical attributes, and the [informant] being completely in the blind to all of it, it should be painfully obvious that the [informant] doesn’t know the defendant. R., Vol. 1 pt. 2 at 294–96. What is notably missing from this argument is any evidence that the allegations of the affidavit are false. It consists solely of speculation that if the affidavit were true, the police would have conducted further investigation (such as a controlled buy) and included more information in the affidavit, even though additional investigation and more detail in the affidavit were not necessary for a lawful search. 1 1 Testimony at trial provided an explanation for the omission of one detail—the name of the “Black male.” On cross-examination of Officer Brice, Defendant (acting pro se) asked if the informant had “reference[d] any one person” when providing information about the residences that were searched. R., Vol. 3 pt. 1 at 186. Brice answered that the informant had “referenced an individual by the name of Frank.” Id. When Defendant asked why Brice did not include the name in the affidavit, he said that at the time he did Continued . . . 14 In any event, a magistrate judge, at the invitation of the government, interviewed the informant ex parte and in camera under oath. He found “that the confidential informant did exist, that the confidential informant had knowledge of defendant and his drug activity, and that the confidential informant provided the relevant information to the officers who later applied for the search warrant.” Id., Vol. 1 pt. 3 at 440. Further exploration of the issue at an evidentiary hearing was unnecessary. If the court reasonably determines after an ex parte interview that the informant cannot assist the defendant, the interest in protecting the informant trumps the interest of the defendant in taking a crack at eliciting helpful testimony from the informant. See United States v. Licavoli, 604 F.2d 613, 621 (9th Cir. 1979) (“The district court conducted an [i]n camera hearing [and,] [a]fter interviewing one of the confidential informants and examining the affidavit of the other, . . . [properly] concluded that no showing of misrepresentation justifying a full evidentiary hearing had been made.”). We reject Defendant’s Franks argument and the request for discovery in support of it.
Defendant may also have been contending below that discovery regarding the informant may have been helpful for reasons other than a Franks hearing. Suggesting not know whether the name “Frank” was an alias or the suspect’s real name. Id., Vol. 3 pt. 2 at 230. Brice explained that drug dealers often use street names to conceal their identities. See id. at 230‒31. 15 that the informant could support a claim of mistaken identity, he invoked Roviaro, 353 U.S. at 62, which requires disclosure of an informant in limited circumstances where the defendant’s need for information to prepare his defense outweighs the government’s need to protect its sources. We review for abuse of discretion a denial of a motion to compel discovery regarding a confidential informant. See United States v. Moralez, 908 F.2d 565, 567 (10th Cir. 1990). The balance under Roviaro did not favor disclosure in this case. In general, “[d]isclosure of an informant is not required . . . where the informant is not a participant in or a witness to the crime charged.” Moralez, 908 F.2d at 567. And in particular, disclosure is rarely necessary when, as here, the informant’s role was only as a tipster who provided probable cause for a search. See id. at 568. There was no special reason for disclosure here. As the court below stated, “Defendant’s only colorable argument . . . is that there has been a case of mistaken identity which could reduce or eliminate some or all of the charges against him.” R., Vol. 1 pt. 2 at 290. But there is no dispute that Defendant was the person who answered the door at the first location searched and was closely connected to the cocaine powder found there. It is utter speculation—and, worse, irrelevant—that he may not have been the “Black male” mentioned in the affidavit. Because the informant had nothing relevant to say regarding Defendant’s guilt of the charged offense, there was no need to question him. Defendant’s reliance on United States v. Robinson, 583 F.3d 1265, 1274‒76 (10th 16 Cir. 2009), in which the informant was “the government’s star witness” at trial, id. at 1267, is misplaced. Moreover, as previously noted, the magistrate judge questioned the informant under oath. He determined that “the confidential informant provided no information that would assist defendant in this case.” R., Vol. 1 pt. 2 at 290. Nothing more was required. As we have said, “[A]n in camera hearing is the appropriate procedural vehicle for determining whether the informant’s testimony would lend significant credence to [the] defense.” Gaines v. Hess, 662 F.2d 1364, 1369 (10th Cir. 1981) (informant had arranged drug sale between defendant and police officer and was present at the sale); see United States v. Martinez, 487 F.2d 973, 977 (10th Cir. 1973); United States v. Cortese, 614 F.2d 914, 922 (3d Cir. 1980) (denying release to defense attorney of notes of in camera testimony because “disclosure to attorneys is likely to compromise the policy behind the informer privilege”). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying any further disclosure regarding the informant.