(1) 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 of law to a law enforcement officer or member of a legislative committee or its staff conducting an investigation.
(2) 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.
(3)(a) No privilege exists under this rule if the identity of the informer or his interest in the subject matter of his communication has been disclosed to those who would have cause to resent the communication by a holder of the privilege or by the informer's own action, or if the informer appears as a witness.
(b) If it appears from the evidence in the case or from other showing by a party that an informer may be able to give testimony necessary to a fair determination of the issue of guilt or innocence in a criminal case or of a material issue on the merits in a civil case to which the government is a party, and the government invokes the privilege, the judge shall give the government an opportunity to show in camera facts relevant to determining whether the informer can, in fact, supply that testimony. The showing may be in the form of affidavits or testimony, as the judge directs. If the judge finds that there is a reasonable probability that the informer can give the testimony, and the government elects not to disclose his identity, the judge on motion of the defendant in a criminal case shall dismiss the charges to which the testimony would relate, and the judge may do so on his own motion. In civil cases, he may make any order that justice requires. Evidence submitted to the judge shall be sealed and preserved to be made available to the appellate court in the event of an appeal, and the contents shall not otherwise be revealed without an order of court. All counsel shall be permitted to be present at any stage at which counsel for any party is permitted to be present.
(c) If information from an informer is relied upon to establish the legality of the means by which evidence was obtained and the judge is not satisfied that the information was received from an informer reasonably believed to be reliable or credible, he may require the identity of the informer to be disclosed. The judge shall, on request of the government, direct that the disclosure be made in camera. All counsel and parties concerned with the issue of legality shall be permitted to be present at every stage of proceedings under this subdivision except a disclosure in camera, at which no counsel or party shall be permitted to be present. If disclosure of the identity of the informer is made in camera, the record thereof shall be sealed and preserved to be made available to the appellate court in the event of an appeal, and the contents shall not otherwise be revealed without consent of the government.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
11
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1988–2023 · leading case:
State v. Blair, 300 Neb. 372 (Neb. 2018).
State v. Blair, 300 Neb. 372 (Neb. 2018).
· cites it 30× “The court noted that Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-510 (Reissue 2016) generally provides for "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 of law to a law enforcement officer"…”
State v. Lomack, 545 N.W.2d 455 (Neb. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 19× “510, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-510 (Reissue 1989), which, subject to certain conditions and exceptions, grants to the government 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 *471…”
State v. Hankins, 441 N.W.2d 854 (Neb. 1989).
· cites it 3× “An in camera hearing was held, after which the trial judge overruled the State’s motion, but also denied Hankins’ request to have the informer’s identity disclosed pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-510 (Reissue 1985) by ordering all present at the hearing on the motion not to…”
State v. Sherrod, 27 Neb. Ct. App. 435 (Neb. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 2× “The State objected and invoked its privilege under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-510 (Reissue 2016) to protect the identity of the informant.”
State v. Brown, 567 N.W.2d 307 (Neb. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 28× “INTRODUCTION This is an error proceeding brought by the State seeking review of the trial court’s dismissal of a criminal proceeding under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-510 (Reissue 1995) after the court concluded that the State could not disclose the identity of an alleged unknown…”
State v. Ege, 420 N.W.2d 305 (Neb. 1988).
· cites it 2× “Furthermore, the informant’s statements were not offered for the truth of the matter of the defendant’s intoxication; they were offered to show that Officer Hearn formed a reasonable suspicion that the defendant was involved in criminal activity. As such, the statements were not…”
State v. Wade, 581 N.W.2d 906 (Neb. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 5× “§ 27-510 (1) (Reissue 1995) grants the State “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 of law ...” However, § 27-510 also places certain limitations on this…”
State v. McCormick, 523 N.W.2d 697 (Neb. 1994).
· cites it 2× “The State alleges, in the appeal now before this court, that the district court abused its discretion in failing to acknowledge the State’s privilege to withhold the identity of persons who furnish information to law enforcement agencies pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-510…”
State v. Blair, 300 Neb. 372 (Neb. 2018).
· cites it 35× “Where § 27-510 commits a question at issue to the discretion of the trial court, an appellate court reviews the trial court’s determination for an abuse of discretion.”
State v. Sherrod, 27 Neb. Ct. App. 435 (Neb. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 2× “The State objected and invoked its privilege under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-510 (Reissue 2016) to protect the identity of the informant.”
State v. Ottens (Neb. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 2× “Additionally, counsel withdrew his Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-510 (Reissue 2016) motion contesting the credibility of the CI.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-510(1) — 3 cases
State v. Blair, 300 Neb. 372 (Neb. 2018).
“The court noted that Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-510 (Reissue 2016) generally provides for "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 of law to a law enforcement officer"…”
State v. Lomack, 545 N.W.2d 455 (Neb. Ct. App. 1996).
“510, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-510 (Reissue 1989), which, subject to certain conditions and exceptions, grants to the government 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 *471…”
State v. Blair, 300 Neb. 372 (Neb. 2018).
“Where § 27-510 commits a question at issue to the discretion of the trial court, an appellate court reviews the trial court’s determination for an abuse of discretion.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-510(3)(a) — 1 case
State v. Lomack, 545 N.W.2d 455 (Neb. Ct. App. 1996).
“510, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-510 (Reissue 1989), which, subject to certain conditions and exceptions, grants to the government 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 *471…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-510(3)(b) — 5 cases
State v. Blair, 300 Neb. 372 (Neb. 2018).
“The court noted that Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-510 (Reissue 2016) generally provides for "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 of law to a law enforcement officer"…”
State v. Lomack, 545 N.W.2d 455 (Neb. Ct. App. 1996).
“510, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-510 (Reissue 1989), which, subject to certain conditions and exceptions, grants to the government 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 *471…”
State v. Wade, 581 N.W.2d 906 (Neb. Ct. App. 1998).
“§ 27-510 (1) (Reissue 1995) grants the State “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 of law ...” However, § 27-510 also places certain limitations on this…”
State v. Brown, 567 N.W.2d 307 (Neb. Ct. App. 1997).
“INTRODUCTION This is an error proceeding brought by the State seeking review of the trial court’s dismissal of a criminal proceeding under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-510 (Reissue 1995) after the court concluded that the State could not disclose the identity of an alleged unknown…”
State v. Blair, 300 Neb. 372 (Neb. 2018).
“Where § 27-510 commits a question at issue to the discretion of the trial court, an appellate court reviews the trial court’s determination for an abuse of discretion.”
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.