: Explicitly states that the identity of an informant who discloses a violation of state or federal law is confidential and may not be disclosed without proper authorization from the governor or inspector general.
Publicly identifying informants would immediately compromise any active undercover operations they are supporting.
Conversely, a defendant's inability to access CI information can sometimes compromise their defense. As the Indiana Supreme Court recognized in Thorne , when a CI is the only corroborating witness to a transaction, the defendant's right to confront witnesses and prepare a defense requires some level of disclosure. The challenge lies in balancing these competing interests.
As noted by the Indiana Public Access Counselor, there is no single list of confidential records, as exemptions are found in many different areas of state and federal law. A request for a "list of all confidential informants" would almost certainly be denied because such a list itself would be classified as confidential criminal intelligence information. Agencies are even permitted to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of such a record if acknowledging it would compromise public safety or reveal a confidential source. confidential informant list indiana
The informant's identity is of the case.
Indiana ranks among the most protective states for CI secrecy, alongside Texas and Alabama.
Indiana law recognizes a common-law privilege that allows the government to withhold the identity of individuals who report violations of the law to law enforcement. The primary purpose is to protect the safety of the informant and to encourage citizens to report criminal activity without fear of retaliation. 2. The Brady Rule and Discovery : Explicitly states that the identity of an
The most immediate threat of a leaked CI list is violence. Informants who operate within drug cartels, gang networks, or organized theft rings face severe retaliation if exposed. In Indiana's history, exposed informants have faced intimidation, physical assault, and even homicide. Systematic Collapse of Investigations
A more recent case, State v. Jones (169 N.E.3d 397), addressed the scope of the informer's privilege in the context of a defendant seeking a face-to-face interview with a CI. The court held that just as the informer's privilege protects an informant's name and address, the privilege must also protect a CI's physical appearance. If the State shows the defendant is requesting a face-to-face interaction, the State has necessarily met the threshold to invoke the confidential informer's privilege.
The foundational agreement between law enforcement and an informant is secrecy. Informants often put their lives or freedom at risk to provide actionable intelligence, expecting their names to remain off public records. As the Indiana Supreme Court recognized in Thorne
The management of confidential informants in Indiana has faced public scrutiny and legal challenges over the years. Several factors complicate the relationship between handlers and informants:
: By definition, CI identities are not public record. Releasing this information could lead to criminal charges like obstruction of justice. Department Records
The Myth and Reality of the "Indiana Confidential Informant List"