K.S.A. » Chapter 60
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 60-436 (2026)

Identity of informer

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

60-436. Identity of informer. A witness has a privilege to refuse to disclose the identity of a person who has furnished information purporting to disclose a violation of a provision of the laws of this state or of the United States to a representative of the state or the United States or a governmental division thereof, charged with the duty of enforcing that provision, or to a member of a crime stoppers chapter recognized by the Kansas state crime stoppers organization, and evidence thereof is inadmissible, unless the judge finds that: (a) the identity of the person furnishing the information has already been otherwise disclosed; or (b) disclosure of such person's identity is essential to assure a fair determination of the issues. The privilege extends to documenting records as well as testimony.

History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-436; L. 1994, ch. 326, § 1; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1978–2021 · leading case: State v. Washington, 772 P.2d 768 (Kan. 1989).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Washington, 772 P.2d 768 (Kan. 1989). · cites it 6× “The defendant next challenges the district court's refusal to order the State to identify the confidential informant, contending that the district court's decision violates the provisions contained in K.S.A. 60-436. The defendant also contends that the refusal of *656 the…”
Unwitting Victim v. C.S., 47 P.3d 392 (Kan. 2002). · cites it 2× “, K.S.A. 60-436 (providing that crime stoppers chapter member or government witness may keep the identity of an informant confidential); K.”
State v. Pink, 696 P.2d 358 (Kan. 1985). · cites it 2× “They claim disclosure is required by K.S.A. 60-436 and that failure to disclose violates their constitutional right to confront witnesses.”
State v. Schilling, 712 P.2d 1233 (Kan. 1986). · cites it 4× “K.S.A. 60-436 addresses the informer's privilege and states: "60-436.”
State v. Clovis, 807 P.2d 127 (Kan. 1991). · cites it 3× “Kansas has codified what was known in the common law as “the informer’s privilege” in K.S.A. 60-436, which provides as follows: “A witness has a privilege to refuse to disclose the identity of a person who has furnished information purporting to disclose a violation of a…”
Palmer v. Brown, 752 P.2d 685 (Kan. 1988). “The Kansas Legislature’s provision for an “informer’s privilege,” K.S.A. 60-436, is “based upon sound public policy to encourage those who have knowledge of crime to come forward and give information to law enforcement officers without fear of disclosure.”
Kloster v. Hancock (In Re Rockhill Pain Specialists, P.A.), 412 P.3d 1008 (Kan. Ct. App. 2017). “" However, the fact that such information is confidential and shall not be disclosed does not necessarily mean that the statute has created an evidentiary privilege. The other statutes we have discussed, K.”
State v. Thomas, 847 P.2d 1219 (Kan. 1993). “Thomas explains that the informer’s privilege is codified at K.S.A. 60-436. He emphasizes that the identity of an informant should be revealed if the disclosure is essential to assure a fair determination of the issues.”
State v. MacK, 612 P.2d 158 (Kan. 1980). “K.S.A. 60-436; State v. Grider, 206 Kan. 537, 538 , 479 P.”
State v. Freel, 32 P.3d 1219 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001). “K.S.A. 60-436. In deciding whether to require disclosure of the identity of a confidential informant, a court must balance the public interest in protecting the flow of information to law enforcement officials against the defendant’s right to prepare his or her defense.”
State v. Cohen, 622 P.2d 1002 (Kan. 1981). · cites it 2× “115, the underlying purpose of K.S.A. 60-436, is stated as follows: “ ‘The privilege to refuse disclosure is based upon sound public policy to encourage those who have knowledge of crime to come forward and give information to law enforcement officers without fear of disclosure.”
State v. Knox, 603 P.2d 199 (Kan. Ct. App. 1979). “To sustain the claim of privilege the State relies on K.S.A. 60-436: “A witness has a privilege to refuse to disclose the identity of a person who has furnished information purporting to disclose a violation of a provision of the laws of this state or of the United States to a…”
Show all 19 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 60-436(a) — 2 cases
State v. Fisher, 942 P.2d 49 (Kan. Ct. App. 1997).
State v. Costner, 734 P.2d 1144 (Kan. 1987).
— K.S.A. § 60-436(b) — 2 cases
State v. Washington, 772 P.2d 768 (Kan. 1989). “The defendant next challenges the district court's refusal to order the State to identify the confidential informant, contending that the district court's decision violates the provisions contained in K.S.A. 60-436. The defendant also contends that the refusal of *656 the…”
State v. Washington, 772 P.2d 768 (Kan. 1989).
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.