[Memorandum: Motion for protection and in camera proceedings] Page: 3 of 8
4 p. ; 28 cm.View a full description of this text.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
In Roviaro v. United States, the leading case on the privilege, the Supreme Court
explained:
What is usually referred to as the informer's privilege is in reality the
Government's privilege to withhold from disclosure the identity of persons
who furnish information of violations of law to officers charged with
enforcement of that law [citations omitted. The purpose of the privilege
is the furtherance and protection of the public interest in effective law
enforcement. The privilege recognizes the obligation of citizens to
communicate their knowledge of the commission of crimes to law-
enforcement officials and, by preserving their anonymity, encourages them
to perform that obligation.
353 U. S. 53, 59 (1957).
Supreme Court Standard 510 makes crystal clear that Parkland cannot raise the
privilege here.
(a) Rule of privilege. - The government or a state or subdivision
thereof has a privilege to refuse to disclose the identity of a person who
has furnished information relating to or assisting in an investigation of a
possible violation to a law enforcement officer or member of a legistlative
committee or its staff conducting an investigation.
(b) Who may claim. - The privilege may be claimed by an
appropriate representative of the government, regardless of whether the
information was furnished to an officer of the government or of a state or
subdivision thereof. The privilege may be claimed by an appropriate
representative of a state or subdivision if the information was furnished to
an officer thereof, except that in criminal cases the privilege shall not be
allowed if the government objects.
Parkland, even though it is an entity of the government for state action purposes, is not
an appropriate government representative, has no involvement whatsoever in law
enforcement and cannot assert the privilege.
The privilege, although usually in issue in criminal cases, has, contrary to
Parkland's assertion, come up in a few civil cases. For example, it may apply in
noncriminal enforcement procedures. See e. , Hodgson v. Charles Martin Inspectors of
Petroleum, 459 F. 2d 303 (5th Cir. 1972); Mitchell v. Roma, 265 F.2d 633 (3rd Cir 1969)
(both involving civil suits for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.) It has also
arisen in the context of a libel action which involved a statement by a police officer whoPLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW - PAGE 2
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This text can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Text.
[Memorandum: Motion for protection and in camera proceedings], text, October 19, 1988; (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc916414/m1/3/: accessed July 18, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting UNT Libraries Special Collections.