Motion to Disclose a Confidential Informant in Minnesota

The Informer's Privilege

Law enforcement relies on confidential informants, and the law generally protects their identities to encourage cooperation and protect their safety. This "informer's privilege" lets the State withhold an informant's name in many situations. But the privilege exists to serve the public interest in law enforcement — not to deprive a defendant of a fair trial.

When Disclosure Can Be Required

The privilege gives way when disclosure is relevant and helpful to the defense or essential to a fair determination of the case. Courts balance the defendant's need for the information against the public interest in protecting the informant. Key factors include:

• Whether the informant was a mere tipster or an active participant or eyewitness to the charged offense (participants and witnesses are far more likely to require disclosure);
• How central the informant is to the issues — guilt, a defense, or a suppression question;
• Whether the informant's information is the linchpin of probable cause; and
• What other evidence exists.

Disclosure vs. Suppression

Sometimes the informant matters not to guilt but to a suppression issue — for example, whether a search-warrant affidavit truthfully described what the informant said and whether the informant was reliable. In that setting, the court may review the issue carefully, sometimes through an in-camera (private) examination, to protect the informant while still ensuring the warrant rested on real, reliable information.

Why It Matters

If a case turns on what an informant supposedly saw or said, the defense often cannot meaningfully test that evidence without knowing who the informant is and what their reliability and motives were. Forcing disclosure in the right case can expose weaknesses at the core of the prosecution.