Document: 465 U.S. 324 104 S.Ct. 1257 79 L.Ed.2d 338 COLORADO, petitioner,v.Antonio Guadalupe NUNEZ No. 82-1845 Supreme Court of the United States February 21, 1984 Rehearing Denied April 16, 1984. See 466 945, 1932. On writ certiorari to Colorado. PER CURIAM. 1 The is dismissed as improvidently granted, it appearing that judgment court below rested on independent and adequate state grounds. 2 Justice WHITE, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE O'CONNOR join, concurring. 3 today concludes Colorado relied grounds when affirmed trial court's decision suppress a quantity heroin seized during search respondent Nunez's house following State's refusal disclose identity confidential informant which Denver Police Department had establish probable cause for search. I write not challenge Court's determination under review rests grounds, but make clear neither Federal Constitution nor any this requires result reached by Court. 4 Before commencement his charge possession controlled substance, Nunez filed motion most evidence against him ground, among others, facially valid warrant authorizing home was supported cause. In companion motion, sought facilitate legality defense merits obtaining disclosure names, addresses, telephone numbers all informants who provided him. held hearing at gave testimony odds affidavit supporting attorney contradictory signals concerning whether conduct affiant or issue. App. 31-32, 34, 36, 38-39. concluded made sufficient "initial showing will provide information essential suppression ruling." People v. Bueno, 646 P.2d 931, 935-936 (Colo.1982). It also found shown reasonable basis in fact believe likely source relevant helpful question guilt innocence. 92. When State refused comply its order informant's identity, suppressed pursuant warrant. 93. 5 took an interlocutory appeal Court, solely ground suppress. Nunez, 658 879 (1983). argued strenuously "an accused must police constructing before he may request prosecution reveal identity." 107. view, "a court, after proper allegation brings affiant's credibility into issue, identity," "[t]here be attack upon can disclosed." Id., 103 (emphasis original). 6 Although cited two federal cases recognizing privilege, distinction between situations where attacked those only questioned largely law. responded kind, concluding contention misapprehended holding Dailey, 639 1068 (1982): 7 "Dailey recognized errors 'from perjury reckless disregard truth, from negligence good faith mistake either officer informant.' P.2d, 1075. When, veracity hearing, probability one these kinds error has been found, election remedies sanctions left discretion district court. necessary foundation exercise ordering accuracy recitals." 881 added). 8 This holding, believe, confers courts do far more than minimally requires. 9 "[I]n power formulate evidentiary rules criminal cases," "has consistently declined hold informer's need always disclosed trial, let alone preliminary determine arrest search." McCray Illinois, 386 300, 312, 87 1056, 1063, 18 62 (1967). Roviaro States, 353 53, 77 623, (1957). Nothing Constitution, we McCray, "to abolish privilege law evidence, . disclos[e] every such appears officers reliance facts supplied informer they reason trust." U.S., S.Ct., 1063. 10 We have, sure, recently Fourth Fourteenth Amendments entitle defendant if makes substantial knowingly intentionally, included false statement finding Franks Delaware, 438 154, 98 2674, 57 667 (1978). But so doing emphasized "[t]he deliberate falsity whose impeachment permitted affiant, nongovernmental informant." 171, 2684. required contemplated routine informants' identities, care avoid deciding predetermining "the difficult reviewing ever require revelation once made." 170, 11 supra, state-court challenged rests, clearly limits rights conferred Amendments. 1074. concluded, however, established constitutional standard entitles defendants appropriate circumstances have purpose. case would resolved differently law, see 306-309, 1060-1061. agree state-law lacks jurisdiction it. 12 STEVENS, 13 view growing public interest magnitude our workload,1 occasion taken note some ways present use resources. Several years ago, expressed concern about purely advisory character individual opinions dissenting orders denying petitions certiorari. Singleton Commissioner, 439 940, 944-945, 99 335, 338, 58 335 (1978) (opinion J.). More noted prone grant merit attention. Watt Alaska, 451 259, 273-276, 101 1673, 1681-1683, 68 80 (1981) (STEVENS, J., concurring); Western Nuclear, Inc., --- ----, ---- - 2218, 2238, 76 400 (1983) dissenting).2 Last Term, South Dakota Neville, 916, 74 748 Michigan Long, 3469, 1201 (1983), decided enlarge decisions. dissented novel assertions appellate part because concerned undesirability rendition SEE ID., AT s.ct., 3489-3490, 3490-3491 dissenting); also, id., 3483 (BLACKMUN, concurring Long ) (noting increased danger new approach"). 14 Today WHITE "agree[s] it." Ante, ----. He nevertheless provides us opinion, case. course over case, lack jurisdiction, no vehicle three Justices now volunteer opinion petition never filed. I, course, fully respect their right question, just other scholars disagree wisdom choice Hayburn's Case, Dall. 409, L.Ed. 436 (1792). merely today's consistent emerging tendency own involvement litigation conducted courts. feeds itself, encourage litigants—particularly institutional litigants file even hope obtaining, reversal, least number support position. light increasing flood petitions, further situation "will very progressively worsen."3 See, e.g., Coleman, States: Managing Caseload Achieve Constitutional Purposes, 52 Fordham L.Rev. (1983); Note, Of High Designs: A Compendium Proposals Reduce Workload 97 Harv.L.Rev. 307 generally Stevens, Some Thoughts Judicial Restraint, 66 Judicature 177, 180 (1982). White, Challenges Bar: Contemporary Reflections, 51 Antitrust L.J. 275, 280

Category: 8