A confidential informant’s identity might be equal to that of an anonymous tipster for a suppression court judge, but their histories are what set them apart, a Philadelphia assistant district attorney told the state Supreme Court during oral arguments Wednesday.
Philadelphia Assistant District Attorney Priya Travassos argued information coming from the two should be treated differently in suppression hearings because there is no way to know whether an anonymous citizen has a history of reliability. However, the reliability of a confidential informant is evident in a police officer’s repeated use of that source, Travassos said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
