Opinion
No. 05-CR-80592.
July 12, 2006
ORDER DENYING RENEWED MOTION TO PRODUCE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT
On October 25, 2005, following an in camera hearing, the Court denied Defendant's motion to produce a confidential informant. On February 2, 2006, an evidentiary hearing was held on Defendant's motion to suppress evidence. Defendant has now filed a renewed motion to produce the informant [Doc. #41], arguing that the accuracy of the information provided by the informant is crucial to the probable cause determination.
It is true that information from the informant was one factor supporting probable cause to stop and search the automobile in which Defendant was a passenger. But that is not dispositive of whether the Defendant's need for disclosure outweighs the government's need to conceal the identity of the informant pursuant to the "informer's privilege" described in Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 77 S.Ct. 623, 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957). The test is whether the informant can give relevant testimony that is helpful to the defense. See United States v. McManus, 560 F.2d 747, 751 (6th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1047, 98 S.Ct. 894, 54 L.Ed.2d 798 (1977); United States v. Straughter, 950 F.2d 1223, 1232 (6th Cir. 1991). Following in camera examination of the informant, the Court found that the informant had no information sufficiently useful to the defense to overcome the Roviaro privilege. Nothing adduced at the suppression hearing changes that conclusion. The informant has no information that is exculpatory or that would in any way help the Defendant as to either the substantive question of guilt or the determination of probable cause as it relates to the suppression motion. Indeed, much of the information on which probable cause was based was independently corroborated. See Report and Recommendation, filed contemporaneously with this Order.
Accordingly, Defendant's Renewed Motion to Produce Informant [Docket #41] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.