STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
GREGORY ANGELOFF, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida's petition for certiorari is granted and the trial court's order requiring disclosure of a confidential informant's whereabouts is reversed because the informant's identity has never been established, and public policy protects confidential informants from disclosure absent specified circumstances.
An order requiring disclosure of a confidential informant's whereabouts is reversed when the informant's identity has not been established, as such disclosure would effectively reveal the identity protected by public policy.
[1] Public policy protects the identity of confidential informants from disclosure absent specified circumstances, and an order requiring disclosure of an informant's whereab…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“public policy favors nondisclosure of confidential informants”
The court explained the legal principle underlying its reversal of the trial court's order.
A defendant moved to disclose the whereabouts of a confidential informant who provided information to Jacksonville police resulting in the defendant's…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Confidential Informant Privilege cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
By this petition for writ of certiorari, the state seeks review of an order of the trial court requiring it to determine whether the identity of a confidential informant is the same as the one named in defendant’s motion to disclose informant’s whereabouts and to furnish the best known address of the informer. State contends that the identity of the informer has never been established and that the motion to disclose whereabouts is in fact an attempt to discover the identity. Respondent contends that the order merely requires state to comply with its duty to disclose the whereabouts of a confidential informant once the informant’s identity has been revealed.
The record before us does not support a finding that the identity of the confidential informant who provided the information to the Jacksonville police department which resulted in respondent’s arrest has ever been revealed. We find therefore, that the order of the trial court is, in effect, an order to reveal that identity. Except under certain specified circumstances, none of which have been argued or shown to exist in this ease, public policy favors nondisclosure of confidential informants. State v. Acosta, 439 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1983). Therefore, the petition for writ of certiorari is granted and the order of the trial court is reversed.
BOOTH, C.J., and WIGGINTON and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Garcia v. State, 521 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…tity. “Disclosure is only helpful to the defense if the testimony of the informant would exculpate the defendant or materially vary from that of the police.” State v. Acosta, 439 So. 2d 1024, 1026-1027 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). See also State v. Angeloff, 474 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), review denied, 484 So. 2d 7 (Fla.1986). We find appellant’s reliance on Boone v. State, 451 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), petition for review denied, 461 So. 2d 116 (Fla.1984), is misplaced. In Boone the court found that appl…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Acosta, 439 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)