Opinion ID: 2360332
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Informer Privilege D.R.E. 509

Text: Congress deleted the proposed rules governing all specific privileges from the Federal Rules of Evidence prior to their enactment into law. [6] The rationale of Congress in rejecting Article V  Privileges  was that federal law should not supersede the law of the states in the area of privilege. [7] Since that rationale is not pertinent to a state, this Court adopted Article V  Privileges  as modeled on Uniform Rule of Evidence Article V [8] and United States Supreme Court Standard 510. [9] The use of informers is a time-tested and necessary aspect of effective law enforcement. Delaware Rule of Evidence (D.R.E.) 509(a) recognizes a rule of privilege that protects the identity of persons who furnish the State with information concerning possible violations of the law. [10] D.R.E. 509(b) provides that the privilege may be claimed by the public entity to which the information was furnished. Notwithstanding the salutary values served by the privilege, D.R.E. 509(c) provides that the right to withhold the informer's identity is not absolute. [11] The identity of a person who has given information to a law enforcement officer to assist in a criminal investigation is privileged under D.R.E. 509(a) unless the informer is able to give testimony which would materially aid the defense. [12] The trial judge must determine whether the informer's testimony would materially aid the defense. [13] That determination is generally accomplished by conducting an in camera hearing. [14]