State v. Angeloff

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Angeloff

474 So. 2d 13, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1959, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 15232

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 14, 1985

DocketNo. BH-11

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 474 So. 2d 13 (State v. Angeloff) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Angeloff, 474 So. 2d 13, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1959, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 15232 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

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 [14]*14the 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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 [14]*14the 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

474 So. 2d 13, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1959, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 15232, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-angeloff-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack