Opinion ID: 1325306
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Identity of Informant.

Text: In a pretrial hearing, Gray sought, inter alia, to discover the identity of the informant relied upon by the police for the issuance of the search warrant. The trial court, after hearing Gray's testimony and the evidence of the police officer who executed the affidavit for the warrant, denied the request. The court specifically found that credible evidence [shows] that there was an informant [and] that the search warrant was ... valid, and concluded that the informant's identity was privileged. On appeal, Gray argues that [t]he failure of the Court to allow [him] to examine the alleged informant, or even to confirm his existence, denied [him] the basic rights of the 5th Amendment's Due Process and the 6th Amendment's right to confront his accusers. The Supreme Court rejected these identical constitutional arguments in McCray v. Illinois, 386 U.S. 300, 87 S.Ct. 1056, 18 L.Ed.2d 62 (1967). Generally, the identity of a person furnishing the prosecution with information concerning criminal activities is privileged. See Webb v. Commonwealth, 137 Va. 833, 836, 120 S.E. 155, 156 (1923); Annot. 76 A.L.R.2d 262 (1961 & Supp.1986). The purpose of the privilege is to further and protect the public's interest in effective law enforcement. Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 59, 77 S.Ct. 623, 627, 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957). Revealing an informant's identity would discourage private citizens from furnishing the police valuable information; thus, informants demand anonymity to protect themselves and their families. The police often depend upon professional informants for information about crimes. If the public becomes aware of the dual role played by an informant, the informant becomes useless to the police, and persons who might otherwise provide information are discouraged from rendering assistance. See McCray, 386 U.S. at 308-09, 87 S.Ct. at 1061; Roviaro, 353 U.S. at 59, 77 S.Ct. at 627; Webb, 137 Va. at 836, 120 S.E.2d at 156. Although he concedes the existence of the privilege rule, Gray contends, nevertheless, that the circumstances of the present case warrant an exception. He looks to Roviaro as support for his contention. Roviaro, however, is inapposite. In Roviaro, the informant had been an active participant in the crime. The Court stated that he had taken a material part in bringing about the possession of certain drugs by the accused, had been present with the accused at the occurrence of the alleged crime, and might be a material witness as to whether the accused knowingly transported the drugs as charged. Id. at 55, 77 S.Ct. at 625. After reviewing the particular circumstances of Roviaro's trial, the Court noted that the informant was the only participant in the crime other than the accused and therefore his possible testimony was highly relevant, that he might have disclosed an entrapment[,] thrown doubt upon [Roviaro's] identity or on the identity of the package[, or] ... testified to [Roviaro's] possible lack of knowledge of the contents of the package. . . . Id. at 63-64, 77 S.Ct. at 629. The Court concluded that under these circumstances, the trial court committed prejudicial error in permitting the Government to withhold the identity of its undercover employee. Id. at 65, 77 S.Ct. at 630. The circumstances of Gray's case are altogether different. Nothing in the record suggests that the informant participated in or knew anything about the crimes for which Gray stands convicted. Unlike Roviaro, the informant in the present case could not have been helpful in Gray's defense of his capital murder charge. Indeed, the affidavit for the search warrant shows that the information furnished was limited to Gray's drug activities and the informant was a person who had furnished the police with reliable information of narcotic activities in the past. We conclude, therefore, that under the circumstances of the present case the privilege rule applies and the trial court did not err in its ruling.