Okla. Stat. » Title 12 — CIVIL PROCEDURE
Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2510 (2026)

Identity of informer

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. The United States, 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 a law to a law enforcement officer or member of a legislative committee or its staff conducting the investigation. B. The privilege under this section may be claimed by an appropriate representative of the public entity to which the information was furnished. C. The following shall be exceptions to the privilege granted in this section: 1. No privilege exists if the identity of the informant or the informant's interest in the subject matter of the informant's communication has been disclosed to those who would have cause to resent the communication by a holder of the privilege or by the informant's own action, if the informant appears as a witness for the government, or if information regarding the informant is required to be disclosed pursuant to paragraph 4 of subsection A of Section 2002 of Title 22 of the Oklahoma Statutes. 2. If the informant is also a material witness to the criminal conduct with which the defendant is charged, or was a participant in the criminal conduct conjointly with the defendant, or is shown to be able to give testimony relevant to a material issue in the case. 3. If information from an informant is relied upon to establish the legality of the means by which evidence was obtained and the court or the defendant is not satisfied that the information was received from an informant reasonably believed to be reliable or credible, the court or defendant may require the identity of the informant to be disclosed. The court shall, on request of the government, direct that the disclosure be made in chambers. All counsel and parties concerned with the issue of legality shall be permitted to be present at every stage of a proceeding under this subsection except a disclosure in chambers if the court determines that no counsel or party shall be permitted to be present. If disclosure of the identity of the informant is made in chambers, 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.

Added by Laws 1978, c. 285, § 510, eff. Oct. 1, 1978. Amended by Laws 2002, c. 468, § 40, eff. Nov. 1, 2002; Laws 2020, c. 97, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2020.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: Corley v. State, 713 P.2d 12 (Okla. Crim. App. 1985).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Corley v. State, 713 P.2d 12 (Okla. Crim. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “Ill In their third assignment of error, the appellants contend that the trial court erred in refusing to grant their request for disclosure of the confidential informant as provided for in 12 O.S.1981, § 2510(C)(2) and § 2510(C)(3).”
McCoy v. State, 699 P.2d 663 (Okla. Crim. App. 1985). “He claims that under 12 O.S.1981, § 2510(C)(3), the court should require disclosure when, “the court or defendant is not satisfied that the information was received from an informer reasonably believed to be reliable or credible.”
Taylor v. State, 621 P.2d 1184 (Okla. Crim. App. 1980). “It was repealed when, the Evidence Code was enacted, but comparable provisions may now be found at 12 O.S.Supp. 1980, § 2510.”
Robinson v. State, 634 P.2d 734 (Okla. Crim. App. 1981). · cites it 4× “285, § 510 (now 12 O.S.Supp.1980, § 2510), the trial judge interviewed the detective outside the presence of the appellant and both attorneys.”
Nondoc Media & William W. Savage III v. State ex rel. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. Of Oklahoma, 2026 OK 2. · cites it 4× “12 O.S. § 2510 ¶18 The University asserted that the identity of informer privilege has been extended to include information furnished to agencies beyond law enforcement that are involved in investigations and argued that the privilege covers both the witnesses' identities and…”
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2510(C)(2): 1 case
Corley v. State, 713 P.2d 12 (Okla. Crim. App. 1985). “Ill In their third assignment of error, the appellants contend that the trial court erred in refusing to grant their request for disclosure of the confidential informant as provided for in 12 O.S.1981, § 2510(C)(2) and § 2510(C)(3).”
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2510(C)(3): 3 cases
Corley v. State, 713 P.2d 12 (Okla. Crim. App. 1985). “Ill In their third assignment of error, the appellants contend that the trial court erred in refusing to grant their request for disclosure of the confidential informant as provided for in 12 O.S.1981, § 2510(C)(2) and § 2510(C)(3).”
McCoy v. State, 699 P.2d 663 (Okla. Crim. App. 1985). “He claims that under 12 O.S.1981, § 2510(C)(3), the court should require disclosure when, “the court or defendant is not satisfied that the information was received from an informer reasonably believed to be reliable or credible.”
Robinson v. State, 634 P.2d 734 (Okla. Crim. App. 1981). “285, § 510 (now 12 O.S.Supp.1980, § 2510), the trial judge interviewed the detective outside the presence of the appellant and both attorneys.”
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.