Opinion ID: 773573
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Disclosure and Production of the Confidential Informant

Text: 8 Jefferson contends the district court erred in denying his motion for disclosure and production of the confidential informant, arguing that the informant's testimony would have supported his assertion that he was merely a customer at the residence at the time the warrant was executed. We review a district court's denial of a motion for disclosure of the identity of a confidential informant for abuse of discretion and will affirm if any reasonable person could agree with the district court's decision. United States v. Valles, 41 F.3d 355, 358 (7th Cir. 1994). 9 The government has a limited privilege to withhold the identity of a confidential informant from a criminal defendant. Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 60 (1957). As the Supreme Court has recognized, citizens have an obligation to communicate their knowledge of the commission of crimes to law enforcement officials. Id. at 59. By preserving anonymity, this privilege encourages citizens to perform that obligation. Id. In determining whether to disclose a confidential informant's identity, a court must balance the public interest in protecting the flow of information against the individual's right to prepare his defense. Id. at 62. Therefore, in order to overcome the limited privilege, a defendant must establish that the disclosure of the informant's identity is either relevant and helpful to his defense or essential to a fair determination of a cause. Id. at 60-61. 10 Jefferson points out that the police reports indicate the informant had been at the scene just five minutes before the execution of the search warrant. 1 Jefferson contends that the informant would testify that Jefferson was the person who opened the door for him when he visited the residence on June 28 and that the informant had never seen Jefferson before that time. Jefferson also asserts that, based on the three drug purchases, the confidential informant arguably had extensive knowledge of the activities of those conducting business in this drug house. Jefferson believes the fact that the informant never dealt directly with him and never saw Jefferson before Jefferson opened the door of the residence on June 28 completely exonerates him. 11 We examined a similar claim in United States v. Bender, 5 F.3d 267 (7th Cir. 1993). In Bender, the defendant was charged with possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute after being found in possession of crack cocaine when a no knock search warrant was executed at a townhouse. Id. at 267-68. The search warrant in Bender was issued based on the fact that a confidential informant had made three purchases of crack cocaine from the townhouse from individuals other than the defendant. Id. at 268. Bender claimed he did not own the drugs he had been holding and was in the townhouse for the first time on a social visit when the warrant was executed. Id. at 269. The panel in Bender affirmed the denial of Bender's motion to disclose the identity of the confidential informant, characterizing the informant as a tipster rather than a transactional witness. Id. at 270. The panel recognized that the charges against Bender were not based on criminal activity the informant had witnessed and, therefore, the informant's testimony had no particular significance to Bender's defense. Id. at 271. The panel further noted that Bender had available other witnesses who, because of their closer involvement, could have easily and perhaps more convincingly corroborated his story. Id. at 269-70. 12 Even assuming the confidential informant would testify as Jefferson claims he would, Jefferson has not shown that such testimony would be particularly significant to his defense. Unlike the defendant in Bender, Jefferson's charges included charges of conspiracy. However, the charges against Jefferson were based on evidence which was obtained when the search warrant was executed and statements made by Jefferson and McCoy at the time of their arrests, not on any criminal activity the confidential informant had witnessed. The confidential informant was a mere tipster, who provided law enforcement officials with information which led to the acquisition of the search warrant. Although the informant had been present at the residence shortly before the warrant was executed, his role ended at the conclusion of the third drug buy, and he was not present when the warrant was executed and the search was conducted or when the post-arrest statements were made. As the panel in Bender recognized, the public has a strong interest in protecting the free flow of information in cases such as these and not many people want to become police informants in light of the violence within the drug subculture. Bender, 5 F.3d at 270. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Jefferson's motion for disclosure and production of the confidential informant.