Alderrou

People v. Alderrou

Good Law
191 Cal. App. 3d 1074·1987 Cal. App. LEXIS 1704·236 Cal. Rptr. 740
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 8, 1987B017580California3,559 words

Opinion

Opinion

Johnson, J.

In this case, appellant urges the trial court erred in denying him disclosure of the identity of a confidential informant. The court held an in camera hearing at which the confidential informant did not appear. We conclude in the circumstances of this case it was appropriate to deny disclosure even without testimony from the informant at the in camera hearing. Accordingly, we affirm.

Facts and Proceedings

Between December 12 and 17, 1984, an informant told Officer Robert P. Mallen he had purchased cocaine from appellant on numerous occasions at a certain address. Shortly thereafter Officer Mallen arranged a “controlled buy.” The officer dialed the telephone number of the residence and listened in while the informant discussed a purchase of cocaine. The person on the other end of the line identified himself as “Bill” and said he was by himself at the time. The informant was searched and given $100 in marked bills. The informant went to the house and returned without the money but with nearly a gram of cocaine.

Using an affidavit recounting the informant’s information and the circumstances of the “controlled buy,” Officer Mallen obtained a search warrant for the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.