60-436. Identity of informer. A witness has a privilege to refuse to disclose the identity of a person who has furnished information purporting to disclose a violation of a provision of the laws of this state or of the United States to a representative of the state or the United States or a governmental division thereof, charged with the duty of enforcing that provision, or to a member of a crime stoppers chapter recognized by the Kansas state crime stoppers organization, and evidence thereof is inadmissible, unless the judge finds that: (a) the identity of the person furnishing the information has already been otherwise disclosed; or (b) disclosure of such person's identity is essential to assure a fair determination of the issues. The privilege extends to documenting records as well as testimony.
History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-436; L. 1994, ch. 326, ยง 1; July 1.
Cross References to Related Sections:
Journalist privilege, see 60-480.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
"The Psychotherapists' Privilege," Craig Kennedy, 12 W.L.J. 297 (1973).
The exclusion of evidence obtained by use of false affidavits, 27 K.L.R. 509, 515 (1979).
"Survey of Kansas Law: Evidence," 29 K.L.R. 497, 504, 505 (1981).
"Tort Law: Kansas Further Limits Employment-at-Will By Providing Relief for Whistleblowers [Palmer v. Brown, 242 Kan. 893, 752 P.2d 685 (1988)]," Lisa K. Hammer, 28 W.L.J. 172, 180, 182, 184 (1988).
Attorney General's Opinions:
Extensive discussion of confidentiality provisions of Kansas Code for Care of Children. 2004-32.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. No abuse of court's discretion in refusing to require disclosure of informer's identity. State v. Robinson, 203 Kan. 304, 308, 309, 454 P.2d 527.
2. Disclosure of informant's identity within discretion of court; statute encourages persons to reveal knowledge of crime. State v. Grider, 206 Kan. 537, 538, 479 P.2d 818.
3. Court's refusal to require disclosure of informer will not be overruled without just cause. State v. Nirschl, 208 Kan. 111, 115, 490 P.2d 917.
4. Cited; defendant must show identity of the informer is material to his defense. State v. Braun, 209 Kan. 181, 186, 495 P.2d 1000.
5. Failure to compel state to name informant at hearing on motion to suppress evidence not error. State v. Deffenbaugh, 216 Kan. 593, 600, 533 P.2d 1328.
6. Refusal to require disclosure of confidential informant; no abuse of discretion; conviction of heroin possession affirmed. State v. Jacques, 2 Kan. App. 2d 277, 289, 579 P.2d 146.
7. Statute codifies the common law doctrine of "informer's privilege." State v. Knox, 4 Kan. App. 2d 87, 93, 96, 603 P.2d 199.
8. Within sound discretion of trial court as to disclosing identity of informer; determination will not be disturbed in absence of abuse of discretion. State v. Mack, 228 Kan. 83, 87, 612 P.2d 158.
9. Disclosure of the identity of an informant lies within the sound discretion of the court; the defendant must show that the informant has information that is material and relevant. State v. Cohen, 229 Kan. 65, 69, 622 P.2d 1002.
10. Conviction for possession of heroin upheld; court did not abuse discretion in not disclosing informant's identity. State v. Whitehead, 229 Kan. 133, 139, 622 P.2d 665.
11. Defendant must show "Crimestopper" identity material to defense; not mere "tipster" providing information for investigation and arrest. State v. Pink, 236 Kan. 715, 720, 722, 696 P.2d 358 (1985).
12. State appeal from dismissal of marijuana charge (K.S.A. 65-4105(d)(13), 65-4127b(b)(3)); disclosure of confidential informant's identity must be material to defense. State v. Schilling, 238 Kan. 593, 599, 712 P.2d 1233 (1986).
13. Trial court erred in finding person who is involved in a transaction with a defendant cannot be confidential informant and in determining that informant had been "otherwise disclosed." State v. Costner, 241 Kan. 148, 151, 152, 153, 734 P.2d 1144 (1987).
14. Cited; discharge of probationary employee in retaliation for reporting employer's illegal practices as actionable tort examined. Palmer v. Brown, 242 Kan. 893, 899, 752 P.2d 685 (1988).
15. Error to deny defendant's motion to disclose identity of confidential informant without first conducting in camera hearing. State v. Washington, 244 Kan. 652, 655, 660, 772 P.2d 768 (1989).
16. Imposition of sanctions upheld where state failed to comply with order to produce certain information about confidential informant. State v. Clovis, 248 Kan. 313, 323, 807 P.2d 127 (1991).
17. Standard of review on trial court's refusal to disclose identity of confidential informant is abuse of discretion. State v. Thomas, 252 Kan. 564, 580, 847 P.2d 1219 (1993).
|
|