ILCS » Chapter 735 · Act 5
Illinois Compiled Statutes

735 ILCS 5/8-802.3 (2026)

Informant's privilege

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(735 ILCS 5/8-802.3)
    Sec. 8-802.3. Informant's privilege.
    (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), if an individual (i) submits information concerning a criminal act to a law enforcement agency or to a community organization that acts as an intermediary in reporting to law enforcement and (ii) requests anonymity, then the identity of that individual is privileged and confidential and is not subject to discovery or admissible in evidence in a proceeding.
    (b) There is no privilege under subsection (a) if a court, after a hearing in camera, finds that the party seeking discovery or the proponent of the evidence has shown that:
        (1) the identity of an individual who submits
    
information concerning a criminal act is sought or offered in a court proceeding involving a felony or misdemeanor;
        (2) the evidence is not otherwise available; and
        (3) nondisclosure infringes upon a constitutional
    
right of an accused, or there is a need for the evidence that substantially outweighs the interest in protecting confidentiality.
    (b-5) Except as provided in this subsection or under subsection (j) of Supreme Court Rule 412, if a defendant's counsel seeks to discover the identity of an informant, then the defendant's counsel shall file a motion with the court alleging a good faith factual basis for believing that the prior representation of the informant creates a serious potential for an actual conflict of interest. Upon such filing, the court: (1) may deny the motion for lack of factual basis; or (2) if it finds a sufficiently alleged factual basis, shall conduct an in camera hearing with the informant, outside the presence of all counsel, to ascertain whether an actual conflict of interest exists. A transcript of the in camera proceeding shall be made and sealed. After the in camera hearing, the court shall: (i) deny the motion if there is no basis to conclude that a serious potential for an actual conflict exists; or (ii) inform the petitioning counsel that his or her continued representation is a conflict. If the court concludes that a conflict exists, it shall notify the counsel of the nature of the conflict, subject to any condition of nondisclosure that the court deems appropriate.
    (c) The court may impose such sanctions as are necessary to enforce its order.
(Source: P.A. 101-436, eff. 8-20-19.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2010–2021 · leading case: Mahoney v. Gummerson, 2012 IL App (2d) 120391 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mahoney v. Gummerson, 2012 IL App (2d) 120391 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). · cites it 6× “Whether 735 ILCS 5/8-802.3 [(West 2010)] precludes disclosure of a CI’s [confidential informant’s] identity in a civil action involving allegations of a murder-for- hire plot but where no criminal prosecution is being conducted.”
People v. Potts, 2021 IL App (1st) 161219 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021). “) 735 ILCS 5/8-802.3(a) ( West 2014 ). As far as the record shows, the anonymous defense witness was not an informant, within the meaning of the statute and the privilege it codifies.”
People v. Matthews, 2017 IL App (4th) 150911 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). “3 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( 735 ILCS 5/8-802.3 (West 2014) ) clearly provides the procedure for counsel to use when seeking the identity of a confidential source.”
Brunton v. Kruger, 2015 IL 117663 (Ill. 2015). “2 (West 2012)); Informant’s privilege (735 ILCS 5/8-802.3 (West 2012)); Clergy (735 ILCS 5/8-803 (West 2012)); Union agent and union member (735 ILCS 5/8-803.”
People v. Matthews, 2017 IL App (4th) 150911 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). “3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/8-802.3 (West 2014)) clearly provides the procedure for counsel to use when seeking the identity of a confidential source.”
Brunton v. Kruger, 2015 IL 117663 (Ill. 2015). “2 (West 2012)); Informant’s privilege (735 ILCS 5/8-802.3 (West 2012)); Clergy (735 ILCS 5/8-803 (West 2012)); Union agent and union member (735 ILCS 5/8-803.”
People v. Jackson, 2017 IL App (1st) 151779 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). “It is a common law privilege, but evolved from the statutory "informant's privilege," which was intended to protect the identity of police informants (see 735 ILCS 5/8-802.3 (West 2012) ). People v.”
People v. Palmer, 2017 IL App (1st) 151253 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). “See 735 ILCS 5/8-802.3 (West 2012) ; Criss , 294 Ill.”
People v. Jackson, 2017 IL App (1st) 151779 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). “It is a common law privilege but evolved from the statutory “informant’s privilege,” which was intended to protect the identity of police informants (see 735 ILCS 5/8-802.3 (West 2012)). People v.”
Harris v. One Hope United, 2013 IL App (1st) 131152 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). “Examples include the marital privilege (725 ILCS 5/115-16 (West 2012); 735 ILCS 5/8-801 (West 2012)); physician-patient privilege (735 ILCS 5/8-802 (West 2012)); informant’s privilege (735 ILCS 5/8-802.3 (West 2012); see also Ill.”
People v. Potts, 2021 IL App (1st) 161219 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021). “) 735 ILCS 5/8-802.3(a) ( West 2014 ). As far as the record shows, the anonymous defense witness was not an informant, within the meaning of the statute and the privilege it codifies.”
People v. Potts, 2021 IL App (1st) 161219 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021). “) 735 ILCS 5/8-802.3(a) ( West 2014 ). As far as the record shows, the anonymous defense witness was not an informant, within the meaning of the statute and the privilege it codifies.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— 735 ILCS 5/8-802.3(a) — 3 cases
People v. Potts, 2021 IL App (1st) 161219 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021). “) 735 ILCS 5/8-802.3(a) ( West 2014 ). As far as the record shows, the anonymous defense witness was not an informant, within the meaning of the statute and the privilege it codifies.”
People v. Potts, 2021 IL App (1st) 161219 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021). “) 735 ILCS 5/8-802.3(a) ( West 2014 ). As far as the record shows, the anonymous defense witness was not an informant, within the meaning of the statute and the privilege it codifies.”
People v. Potts, 2021 IL App (1st) 161219 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021). “) 735 ILCS 5/8-802.3(a) ( West 2014 ). As far as the record shows, the anonymous defense witness was not an informant, within the meaning of the statute and the privilege it codifies.”
— 735 ILCS 5/8-802.3(b) — 1 case
Mahoney v. Gummerson, 2012 IL App (2d) 120391 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). “Whether 735 ILCS 5/8-802.3 [(West 2010)] precludes disclosure of a CI’s [confidential informant’s] identity in a civil action involving allegations of a murder-for- hire plot but where no criminal prosecution is being conducted.”
— 735 ILCS 5/8-802.3(b)(1) — 1 case
Mahoney v. Gummerson, 2012 IL App (2d) 120391 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). “Whether 735 ILCS 5/8-802.3 [(West 2010)] precludes disclosure of a CI’s [confidential informant’s] identity in a civil action involving allegations of a murder-for- hire plot but where no criminal prosecution is being conducted.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.