STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
ERIC KENYA POOLE, ET AL., RESPONDENTS
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.
The court held that the trial court erred in ordering the state to submit Crimeline information for in camera review, as the defense motion failed to establish grounds for disclosure.
[1] A defendant seeking disclosure of confidential informant information must assert grounds demonstrating that the disclosure is relevant and helpful to the defense or essen…
[2] A motion to compel discovery of anonymous crime line tips must specify the grounds supporting the request for disclosure.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendants, accused of murder, moved to compel discovery of anonymous crime line tips. A police officer testified that many calls were received, but m…
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
PETERSON, Chief Judge.
The state of Florida seeks certiorari review of the trial court’s order which requires the state to submit Crimeline information for in camera review after the state removes or conceals the identity of callers. Crimeline is a program which allows anonymous or identified persons to supply police agencies with information regarding criminal activity. In this case, the four male co-defendants, accused of fatally beating a young woman, moved to compel discovery of “[a]ny and all written records from any source concerning any anonymous crime line tips concerning any aspect of the charges at issue.” The unsworn motion did not assert any grounds in support of the request. The motion was made after a police officer stated in his deposition that possibly one hundred phone calls had been received relative to the crime for which the defendants had been charged. The officer revealed the names of a few of the informants but indicated that, because the murder might have been gang-related, most of the Crimeline callers feared reprisal if they were identified.
We need not repeat at length the procedure required to be followed by the defense in seeking production of the names of confidential informants and the information supplied by them. This privilege of nondisclosure and its rationale are set forth in State v. Harklerode, 567 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). See also Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 77 S.Ct. 623, 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957). It is sufficient to say that in this ease the defendants’ motion failed to come close to the requirement of asserting grounds that would show that disclosure of identities or of the contents of the communications is relevant and helpful to the defense of the accused, or is essential to a fair determination of the cause. Harklerode, 567 So. 2d at 983.
We grant the state’s petition and quash the order compelling discovery except as to those records which directly relate to the individuals revealed in the police officer’s deposition commencing at 10:36 a.m. on February 8,1995.
PETITION GRANTED.
GRIFFIN and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Barnes v. State, 743 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…prosecution. See also Allen v. State, 703 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); State v. Taplis, 684 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); State v. Ashley, 670 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); State v. Guthrie, 666 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); State v. Poole, 665 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); State v. Campbell, 664 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); State v. Ingleton, 653 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); State v. Myrick, 636 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); and State v. Smith, 600 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Taplis,…
Authorities Cited
- Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (U.S. 1957)
- State v. Harklerode, 567 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)