CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
...Privileges
......Official Information; Info Held by Govt
.........Informer Identity Priv
 11 Cards On This Topic:
  • Governmental agencies' privilege to refuse to disclose identity of informer.
  • Effect of governmental agency's relying upon privilege not to disclose informer's identity in criminal proceeding.
  • If search warrant valid on face, agency need not reveal identity of informant to establish legality of search.
  • Otherwise admissible evidence of information given to officer admissible on issue of reasonable cause, without revealing identity of informant.
  • Although magistrate erred in directing sealed portion of search warrant affidavit be retained by police, error did not make it impossible to safeguard D's right to meaningful appellate review.
  • Privilege protecting informer's identity under EC §1041 applies to a person who confidentially discloses a violation of law and does not require informer's communication lead to prosecution of a certain person.
  • Invocation of government informer privilege correctly sustained where informer was not a material witness, i.e., did not have knowledge of facts that would tend to exculpate defendant.
  • Even if invocation of government informer privilege incorrectly sustained, no prejudicial error where defendant would not have received a better outcome at trial if allowed to cross-examine informer.
  • Disclosure of confidential informant's name not mandatory just b/c s/he is a percipient witness; disclosure occurs if D makes adequate showing at in camera hearing that informant can give exculpatory evidence.
  • No abuse of discretion in denying motion to disclose identity of confidential police informant [Evid. Code §1041].
  • Before in camera hearing on official privilege claim, party must explain in court why privilege applies or declare it cannot do so w/out betraying privilege.


    •