Cooperating with the police, Confidential informants

A confidential informant contract is a formal agreement between law enforcement and an individual who agrees to provide information about criminal activities. Key elements typically include:

1. Confidentiality: Assurance that the informant’s identity will be protected.
2. Scope of Cooperation: Details on what information the informant will provide and the nature of their cooperation.
3. Compensation: Terms regarding any financial or other benefits the informant may receive for their information.
4. Legal Protections: Clarification of the informant’s rights and any protections from prosecution for minor offenses related to their role as an informant.
5. Conditions and Termination: Conditions under which the contract may be modified or terminated.

These contracts help manage the informant’s role and establish expectations between them and law enforcement.

Here’s an overview of Maryland statutes and case law related to confidential informants (CIs):

Maryland Statutes

1. Maryland Rules of Evidence:
   • Rule 5-510: Protects the confidentiality of communications, including those involving informants. This rule emphasizes that information can be withheld if disclosure would compromise ongoing investigations.
2. Controlled Dangerous Substances Act (Md. Crim. Law Code Ann. § 5-101 et seq.):
   • Allows the use of CIs in drug-related investigations, outlining the legal framework for how informants can be utilized in these cases.
3. Maryland Wiretap Act (Md. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. § 10-401 et seq.):
   • Governs electronic surveillance and includes provisions about the use of CIs, ensuring that the rights of individuals are protected during investigations.

Case Law

1. Roviaro v. United States (1957):
   • Although a federal case, it has influenced Maryland law. The court ruled that the government must disclose the identity of a CI if their testimony is critical to the defense.
2. State v. Smith (1996):
   • The Maryland Court of Appeals held that the state can protect a CI’s identity unless the defense shows that it is essential for a fair trial.
3. State v. Mendez (2009):
   • This case emphasized that if a CI’s information is used to obtain a search warrant, the reliability of that informant must be established to validate the warrant.
4. State v. Chisum (1999):
   • The court examined the reliability of a CI’s information in determining probable cause, stating that the informant’s credibility is crucial for the legality of searches and arrests.
5. Cohen v. State (2012):
   • This case reinforced the principle that informants’ identities can be protected unless disclosure is necessary for the defendant’s case.

Conclusion

Maryland’s approach to confidential informants involves balancing law enforcement needs with the rights of defendants. Legal representation is essential in cases involving CIs, particularly when seeking disclosure or challenging the credibility of informants.