What Roviaro v. United States Means in the Governments Prosecution

v.

Wilbert B. Warren, Appellant

Legal Issue

Whether the District Court improperly denied Warren's motion to discover the identity of a confidential informant.

Conclusion

Supreme Court held that the District Court acted within its discretion in concluding that the Government's interest in preserving the confidentiality of a reliable informant outweighed Warren's claimed need for the informant's identity per Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. at 62, 77 S.Ct. at 629.

Facts

Park Police Officers enter 76 Galveston Place, S.W., Apt. # 1, after receiving a search warrant from a Federal Magistrate. The search warrant was issued based on an affidavit prepared by Officer Gerald T. Holman, Sr. who stated that the police was given information about crack cocaine being sold and stored from the specific address issued on the search warrant. The information was offered by a "confidential reliable source." The informant was said to be "proven reliable in the past" and "never proven unreliable." The informant was not a part of the search of the apartment where Warren was found, but did take place in a controlled purchase at the same location and apartment previous to the issuance of the search warrant. The information concerning the controlled purchase was laid out in Officer Holman's affidavit. The name of the informant was not given.

Prior to trial Warren issued two motions: (1) to suppress all evidence seized in the search and (2) to discover the identity of Officer Holman's confidential informant on the basis that the informant was vital and the only one that could testify that Warren did not sell the drugs to the informant during the controlled buy.

Legal Reasons/Rationale

During Warren's challenge to the District Court he was required to overcome "the Government's privilege to withhold from disclosure the identity of persons who furnish information of violations of law to officers charged with enforcement of that law" per Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 59, 77 S.Ct. 623, 627, 1 L.Ed. 2d. 639 (1957). However, according to United States v. Brodie, 871 F. 2d 125, 128 (D.C. Cir. 1989) the privilege of disclosure is "by no means absolute." The decision by a court on whether to disclose is based around Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. at 62, 77 S.Ct. at 629 which states: "the public interest in protecting the flow of information against the individual's right to prepare his defense." Lastly, United States v. Skeens, 449 F. 2d 1066, 1071 (D.C. Cir. 1971) states, "that Roviaro does not require disclosure of an informant who was not an actual participant in or a witness to the offense charged." As such, per Skeens, the identity is withheld because the informant did not participate in the search. The informant only had a part in the information that was used to obtain a search warrant and is as such protected by United States v. Whitmore, 480 F. 2d 1154, 1155 (D.C. Cir. 1973) which affirms denial to necessitate informants identity and appearance.