Court Opinion

ID: 9764209
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:14:52.676426+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:54.787473
License: Public Domain

GALLAGHER, Associate Judge
(concurring) :
I believe that, on this record, the court pursued the source of the confidential informant’s knowledge to a degree reasonable under these particular circumstances. (See note 1 in majority opinion, supra.) As I read the record, appellant agreed specifically to the in camera proceedings conducted by the court to ascertain the source of informant’s knowledge.
Additonally, I take note that, in respect to the apparently unwitting destruction of the 3x5 card,1 there is no risk of a repetition of this in the future as a result of police regulations on preservation of such documents,2 which flowed from United States v. Bryant, 142 U.S.App.D.C. 132, 439 F.2d 642, aff’d after remand, 145 U.S. App.D.C. 259, 448 F.2d 1182 (1971). In fact, the government so represented to this court in this case.
As we stated in United States v. Frye, D.C.App., 271 A.2d 788, 791 (1970), we are aware of the necessity sometimes for the police to react to anonymous information, especially in moving street scenes. But it is also a reality, as we have said, that later on, when in court, there are “troublesome factors” with “unknown and unidentified” informants. Frye, supra at 791. See also People v. Taggart, 20 N.Y.2d 335, 283 N.Y.S.2d 1, 9, 229 N.E.2d 581 (1967).
I concur in the decision because I believe that, all circumstances considered in this case, a reasonable approach was taken to this difficult problem at the trial.

. I do not view this particular occurrence as rising to the level of prejudicial error on this record.

. Metro Police Gen. Order Series 601, No. 2, effective May 26, 1972.