High Court Limits Defendants’ Access to Data on Informants

In a victory for prosecutors, the state Supreme Court on Thursday limited the ability of defendants to obtain information from law enforcement authorities on the reliability of confidential police informants.

The 5-2 ruling came in a legal clash that pitted the need of police to protect the identity of informants against the right of defendants to contest search warrants that have led to their arrest.

The court majority said that in order to get police records to help challenge warrants based on informants’ tips, the accused must first offer evidence casting “reasonable doubt” on such matters as an informant’s past reliability or the information he provided police.

The justices substantially modified a 1985 high court ruling that had given defendants wide latitude to obtain information about an informant, provided that a judge screened it first and removed the name of the informant.

A coalition of prosecutors and conservative legal groups challenged the 1985 decision, saying it had opened the way for “fishing expeditions” by defense attorneys and, despite judicial screening, could lead to inadvertent disclosure of informants’ identities, placing their lives at risk.

The state high court, in a 36-page opinion by Chief Justice Malcolm M. Lucas, agreed that the 1985 decision was “inappropriately broad” and should be trimmed back.

In dissent, Justice Stanley Mosk, joined by Justice Allen E. Broussard, said Thursday’s ruling placed an “unrealistic” burden on defendants, who now will risk being denied the very information they need to challenge an informant’s reliability. The dissenters said that the court’s new, tougher standard would make it too easy to hide information casting doubt on an informant’s credibility.

State Deputy Atty. Gen. Ronald S. Matthias welcomed the ruling, saying it would resolve conflicting interpretations of the 1985 ruling that had caused confusion and uncertainty among trial judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys. The decision also is likely to reduce the chances an informant’s identity could be learned from disclosure of information, Matthias said.

The attorney for the defendant in the case could not be reached for comment.

The case arose in July, 1985, when police in Contra Costa County obtained a warrant to search the home of George Luttenberger for evidence that he was dealing in illegal drugs.

An affidavit accompanying the warrant was signed by a police officer who said he had received information on Luttenberger’s alleged activities from a confidential informant--referred to only as “CRI”--who had proved reliable in the past.

In their subsequent search, police found methamphetamine, marijuana, syringes, drug-altering substances, $880 in cash and two loaded handguns. Luttenberger was charged with possession of illegal drugs for sale.

As a prelude to challenging the validity of the warrant, Luttenberger asked that police be required turn over any information on the informant’s past experiences with illegal drugs, police reports and any pay vouchers involving the informant, and any promises made to the informant by police.

A magistrate denied the request, and Luttenberger, who had pleaded not guilty, sought dismissal of the charges because he had been refused access to police records. The trial judge dismissed the case and a state Court of Appeal, citing the 1985 high court ruling, upheld that action. Thursday’s decision sent the case back to the trial court for further proceedings.