Opinion ID: 2556334
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Motion for Identification of the Confidential Informant

Text: [¶ 8] The State may decline to disclose the identity of a person who has furnished information relating to or assisting in an investigation of a possible violation of a law to a law enforcement officer. M.R. Evid. 509(a). An exception applies when the informant may be able to give testimony relevant to any issue in a civil or criminal case. M.R. Evid. 509(c)(2). [¶ 9] When a defendant alleges that a warrant is invalid based on facts attributed to confidential informants, the trial judge must decide whether in the court's sound discretion disclosure of an informant's identity is warranted. State v. Chase ( Chase I ), 439 A.2d 526, 531 (Me. 1982). [¶ 10] When disclosure of an informant's identity is sought to support a motion for a Franks hearing that is based on an allegation of a faulty warrant and a claim that the evidence seized pursuant to the warrant should be suppressed, the defendant is not required to show that the informant is able to contribute information relevant at trial as required pursuant to M.R. Evid. 509(c)(2). Chase I, 439 A.2d at 530-31. However, the defendant must make a showing greater than a bare assertion and supported by more than the mere desire to determine the informant's identity, and the court should deny the motion to disclose unless the defendant raises [a] legitimate question or doubt ... as to the affiant's credibility. Id. at 531 (emphasis added). Accordingly, the information to be provided by the informant whose identity is sought must go to the credibility of the affiant, rather than the credibility of the informant himself. Id. at 531. [¶ 11] When the defendant has presented no evidence that the informant may have knowledge relevant to the crime charged, disclosure of the informant's identity is not warranted. State v. Chase ( Chase II ), 505 A.2d 791, 793-94 (Me.1986). Moreover, when the informant will not be called at trial because he was not present on execution of the warrant and otherwise possesses no information relevant to the elements of the crimes charged ... [and] is unable to testify to any relevant fact concerning the charge facing the defendant, disclosure of the informant's identity is inappropriate. Id. at 793-94. At the court's discretion, in camera proceedings may be used to determine whether disclosure is appropriate. Chase I, 439 A.2d at 531. [¶ 12] We review the decision to disclose or withhold an informant's identity for an abuse of discretion or other error of law. State v. Faust, 1997 ME 135, ¶ 6, 696 A.2d 1088, 1090. In exercising its discretion, the court must balance the State's interest in protecting the flow of information against the defendant's need for information material to a defense. Id. [¶ 13] A review of the record reveals that Boutilier has not presented adequate evidence to support his allegation that the confidential informant's statement served to enhance the charges against him or that the informant would have information relevant to the case at trial. Since the State specified that it relied only on the evidence found in the search of Boutilier's property in bringing the charges against him and did not plan to call the informant at trial, Boutilier failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that the informant may possess relevant knowledge that could assist in his defense at trial. [¶ 14] Boutilier also has not met the requirement of Chase I that in order to succeed in requiring disclosure of an informant's identity for the purposes of a Franks hearing, he must raise a legitimate question or doubt as to the affiant's, not the informant's, credibility. Chase I, 439 A.2d at 531. Boutilier's arguments present no more than a mere guess that additional details about the informant might support his defense. Thus, the court did not err in denying Boutilier's motion to disclose the identity of the confidential informant.