Confidential informant list wisconsin

Click on the name to be taken to the page s where the individual is discussed. Fain gained the trust of the members of an Arizona cell of Earth First!

The cell decided an acetylene torch was more appropriate, but the FBI forgot to change the case codeword. The FBI claims that Salem wasn't an active informant in the seven months before the first bomb went off, but agents admitted that they had been following one of the conspirators Mahmud Abouhalima just six weeks prior to the explosion.

Their investigation was supposedly called off in mid-Januarydespite warnings that members of the mosque were trying to obtain explosives. This seems unlikely. He was born on November 18, It was Arkin's unit which used the firehouse across from the Lorrraine Motel to surveil Dr.

King and his entourage. Her phone number was He was a member of the team known as 'Sierra 2'. He was a member of the team known as 'Sierra 3'.

He was also placed in charge of finding Bari's new "hideout" after she lowered her profile following threats against and attempts on her life. He had attended the bomb school with Oakland PD officers one month before the March explosion. He and Williams were supposedly looking for an indian named James Theodore Eagle.

He was survived by his wife and two children, who lived in Colorado Springs at the time. Connelley was an FBI agent in the 's. Maybe they still are. John Conway became the case agent after Hemje in late He took part in the search of Darryl Cherney 's residence and was accused by Bari and Cherney's attorneys of initiating the search for Judi Bari 's new home after the explosion. Shortly after the new address was obtained, death threats were delivered to Bari's new landlord.

Ronald Davenport was the Washington, D. He was well liked by Daniel Flanagan. Frank Doyle, Jr. He was a 20 year veteran of anti-terrorism investigations when the Bari case fell into his lap in Often fodder for Hollywood blockbusters such as Black MassReservoir Dogsand The Departedthe secrecy surrounding the identity of confidential informants has always captivated the public. Though the film world has undoubtedly glamorized the life of a confidential informant by adding a dramatic flair to their undercover lives, the plotlines focused on protecting the identity of confidential informants is rooted in reality.

Preserving this protection of anonymity is important to cultivating the relationship between informants and law enforcement but is secondary to the need to provide accused citizens with fair trials. The overhaul of the discovery processes in criminal cases in Texas broadened the information that must be made available to a defendant.

This article follows the development and evolution of the Informer Privilege. Because of the recent legislative changes in the latter, the process for how these two laws work together is still being developed through case law. As is typical of most Rules of Evidence, Rule provides a number of exceptions to when the Identity of Informer Privilege may be invoked. Many of these exceptions apply almost exclusively in criminal cases.

No other parties or counsel may attend this hearing — it is held with the State and trial judge only. During the in camera hearingthe State is required to demonstrate facts as to whether the informant can provide testimony on the merits.

This disclosure does not have to be made in court — the State is only required to disclose the identity to the accused himself. Once the Texas Rules of Evidence were enacted, courts continued to use these exceptions as a guideline for their rulings. However, inthe Court of Criminal Appeals expanded the circumstances mandating disclosure beyond these three exceptions in Bodin v.

In this case, a defendant wanted to know if a man who had left drugs in his home was a confidential informant. He argued that he needed this knowledge in order to argue the defense of entrapment.

When reviewed by the Criminal Court of Appeals, the judgment against Bodin was reversed, stating the trial court erred when it by looking only to whether one of the three pre-rule situations applied. The second criminal based exception to the informer identity privilege is found in subsection c 3 of Rule and pertains to the credibility and reliability of the informant if the informer was relied upon to establish the means of obtaining evidence.

This exception is most commonly raised when there is a question as to the credibility or reliability of an informant who has provided information used to establish probable cause for a search or seizure. In applying Texas Rule of Evidence c 3the test is whether the judge is satisfied that the informant was reasonably believed to be reliable or credible.

For years, Rule served as the comprehensive guideline for the informant identity privilege and the procedures for disclosure. However, on January 1,the revamped Article In the wake of numerous exonerations based on evidence held by the State but never revealed to the defense, the Legislature broadened Article The relevant sections of Article In In addition to this exception for privileged information, The State must notify the defense that information has been withheld.

This method is often illustrated in relation to confidential informants, where the identity of the informant is redacted, while the substance of whatever information he has supplied is provided to the defense.

3. Confidential informant

Considering Article Recent case law shows the interaction between Rule and Article For instance, in Hart v. State, Roosevelt Hart appealed a drug conviction on the grounds that the trial court abused its discretion when it refused to order disclosure of a confidential informants identity.

While the court dismissed this argument on procedural grounds, citing that Hart did not preserve the argument for appeal, the case brings to light the very real possibility that in the near future courts could construe On the other hand, In re State rejected the argument explored in Hartwhile carving out a specific situation in which the Rule privilege would not apply.The Legislature has articulated a broad policy statement for the Open Records Law:.

In recognition of the fact that a representative government is dependent upon an informed electorate, it is declared to be the public policy of this state that all persons are entitled to the greatest possible information regarding the employees who represent them. Further, providing persons with such information is declared to be an essential function of a representative government and an integral part of the routine duties of information. To that end, ss. The denial of public access generally is contrary to the public interest, and only in an exceptional case may access be denied.

Despite this broad policy, the Courts have interpreted the Open Records Law in various ways that should be of concern to public employees. The Wisconsin Open Records Law lists several exceptions to the disclosure requirement. Under the statutory exceptions, a record should be protected from public disclosure if the record:. Before a record containing personally-identifiable information can be released to a requester, the subject of the record must be notified by the custodian that such record may be released.

The subject of the record may then request that the record not be released. These decisions have produced some uncertainty and inconsistencies regarding the coverage of the Wisconsin Open Records Law as well as the procedure for challenging decisions to release records.

The key step in this procedure is ensuring that the records custodian is prevented from releasing the records until the court can determine whether they are exempt from disclosure under one of the exceptions listed above or developed by the courts.

First, you should decide if the record contains information that is damaging to you or reveals personal information about you, such as telephone numbers, addresses, or other sensitive information. If you decide that you do want to challenge the decision to release these records, you should consult with an attorney because the process could be overwhelming to an officer who is unfamiliar with the law and the complicated procedure currently in place.

For additional information regarding these and other related issues, please consult the Wisconsin Department of Justice Public Record Compliance Guide.

The Legislature has articulated a broad policy statement for the Open Records Law: In recognition of the fact that a representative government is dependent upon an informed electorate, it is declared to be the public policy of this state that all persons are entitled to the greatest possible information regarding the employees who represent them.

Under the statutory exceptions, a record should be protected from public disclosure if the record: Contains personally-identifiable information that is collected or maintained in connection with a complaint, investigation, or other circumstance that may lead to an enforcement action, administrative proceeding, arbitration proceeding, or court proceeding—or any such record that is collected or maintained in connection with such an action or proceeding.

Identify a confidential informant. Endanger the security—including the security of the population or staff—of any state prison, jail, secured correctional facility, secured child caring institution, secured group home, center for the developmentally disabled, or facility for the institutional care of sexually-violent persons.

Compromise the rehabilitation of a person in the custody of the department of corrections or detained in a jail or facility of the type listed [above]. What should I do if I am notified that a records custodian plans on releasing records that involve me? Should you become the subject of an Open Records request, you are encouraged to contact your WPPA business agent as soon as possible.

Your business agent can point you in the direction of assistance. Contact wppa.Police have long used confidential informants CI's to assist them in the so-called War on Drugs. CI's provide information that police use to arrest people and search their homes, cars, and possessions.

The Jensen Defense

Wisconsin law allows for informant identities to be kept confidential, even from the defendant prosecuted in a criminal case resulting from informant information.

A confidential informant tipped police that the car, which was on its way back to Stevens Point, WI from Minneapolis, contained the marijuana.

Freeway Ricky: Top Informants Make $5 Million a Year, Downfall of BMF

Jessica Nellesen was the driver of the car, and also in the car were her friend, her friend's boyfriend, and another man. Police really stopped the car to search for the marijuana based on the tip, and used the mirror as an excuse — this is called a pretext stop. This led to the Marshfield officer saying he smelled raw marijuana, which led to a full search of the car, which led to the arrests of Nellesen and the others, all started by the informant's tip. Nellesen and two passengers were charged with Possession of Marijuana, as parties to a crime.

If that sounds hard, it's because it is; the Supreme Court ruling tips the scale in favor of the government at the expense of the constitutional right to a fair trial, in our opinion. On TV and in movies, informants provide information that leads a drug agent go up the underworld ladder leading to a final clash with a drug lord or cartel.

In real world Wisconsin, it typically shakes out much differently, with drug users or small time dealers, scared and arrested, pressured by police to become tipsters. Recent Posts. Learn More. Wisconsin Department of Corrections provides information and policy changes affecting inmate care during the coronavirus crisis.

If you don't follow the Safer At Home Order requirements, you could be charged with and found guilty of a Serving all of wisconsin Tell us what's going on. We want to hear your side of the story so that we can help you set the record straight. Give a brief explanation of your case.Generally speaking, an informant's testimony is necessary for a fair determination of the merits if he or she is a "transactional witness.

OutlawWis. A transactional witness is one who-- quite literally-- was involved in a relevant drug transaction with the defendant, or one who is an eyewitness to any relevant event. If this is the case, the defendant must file a motion to identify the confidential informant. If the court agrees, the judge will order the State to identify the informant.

At that point the prosecutor is confronted with an important decision. He may either comply with the court's order to identify the informant, or he may dismiss the case.

Not surprisingly, many times the State will dismiss the case rather than identify the confidential informant. This is because the confidential informant is most likely providing information on a number of individuals. Identifying the informant would jeopardize all such investigations.

Related content: Get a copy of a blood-alcohol chart Find an experienced lawyer Free criminal record check Criminal motions and briefs Criminal appeals briefs Dumb criminals How do I hire a lawyer? Milwaukee criminal defense attorney Jeffrey W. Jensen, of the Law Offices of Jeffrey W. Jensen, a Milwaukee law firm with offices located at E. If you will face felony charges in either state court or in federal court you should call Appeals About Criminal Appeals.

Appeals Time Line. Interlocutory Appeals. Resources Criminal Law Forms. FALQ- Criminal. Criminal Appeal Briefs. Brief Catalogue. Legal Glossary. Articles Drug Conspiracy. False Confessions. You Defend the Criminals? What Lawyers Can't Change. Top Ten Mistakes. Ten Reasons to Expunge. Ten Most Notable Moments. Myths About OWI. Myths About Criminal Law.

Criminal Motion Practice. Sex Crimes Investigations.

confidential informant list wisconsin

Shoplifting: Now What?To download a printable PDF of the frequently asked questions featured on this page, click here. General information for all three rules Protecting five specific numbers Identifying confidential information Sealing court records Forms and other information.

What are the new rules? Starting on July 1,three new rules apply to documents filed in the Wisconsin circuit court: Wis. The Director of State Courts has created a list of commonly-filed documents and case types that the clerk of court will automatically treat as confidential without a motion.

A party seeking to protect information not covered above must move to seal or redact it and must specify the authority for restricting public access.

You can find these rules on the legislature's website. What is the purpose of these rules? The new rules are intended to reduce the opportunity for identity theft, enhance personal privacy, and provide greater clarity on protecting sensitive information. They put responsibility on attorneys and self-represented parties to identify confidential information at the time of filing.

The clerk of circuit court and register in probate are not required to review filings to find protected and confidential information. Which court records are covered by the rules?

The new rules apply to all documents filed with the circuit courts after July 1,including new documents filed in existing cases. The rules apply to all filings in circuit court cases, even in confidential matters like juvenile and guardianship proceedings.

Courts are not required to review their old records. If parties want to remove social security numbers and other protected information from old records, they may move to do so. There are also provisions for removing the information from new and old transcripts see below. What's the definition of "redact", "seal", and "confidential"? Protecting five specific numbers. What is protected information?

The rule is limited to the five specific items of information. If you want to protect other identifying numbers, you need to file a motion to seal see below. Do other courts have these rules?

The federal courts and at least 20 other state courts have similar rules that require redaction of social security numbers, financial account numbers, and other identifiers. The lists for each state vary. How do I handle redaction of the five specific numbers? When preparing a document like a complaint or motion, you should omit these numbers or refer to them generically for example, "plaintiff's checking account". If the number is necessary to the action, you must submit it to the court using form GF When submitting a previously existing document like an exhibit, you should redact the number by blanking it out on a copy, so the redacted version can be placed in the court file.

If the number is necessary to the action, you should submit it on the GF form or by attaching an unredacted copy to the form. What are some common documents that include the five numbers? Common exhibits are credit card statements, bank statements, tax returns, W-2 forms, and copies of driver licenses.

You should redact these numbers before any exhibits are submitted. Don't I have to submit the original document to the court? If you are submitting a document in support of a motion or brief, you should submit a copy. With the implementation of eFiling, the clerks of court do not keep original pieces of paper. Keep the original document in case there is some question about the authenticity of the document.


If the court requires you to produce the original document, the clerk will keep the original. Do law enforcement officers need to omit the driver license number from citations? For electronic citations, the court case management software will mask the driver license number from public viewing, so law enforcement should continue to include the number on electronic citations.Some of that information is reliable and often, its not.

The way that law enforcement gains this cooperation is through the threat of long jail sentences and the promise of leniency. People, especially those who have prior criminal convictions, will do anything to avoid a lengthy prison sentence. One problem with law enforcement use of cooperating defendants or informants is that these people have a motive to lie and they often do.

Informants will promise things to the police that they cannot deliver to gain their favor.

confidential informant list wisconsin

They will also go to any extent possible to set someone up, even if that someone was originally not interested. They only care about saving themselves. As a result, otherwise law abiding persons are unlawfully entrapped into committing a crime. Entrapment is a legal defense to federal criminal charges when the police act in a manner that is unlawful or their behavior steps over the line. Police are responsible for their informants as well. Therefore, when a cooperating defendant and confidential informant breaks the law, the police are responsible and an entrapment defense can be used.

In other words, law enforcement had an intolerable degree of participation in the criminal enterprise. For instance, when a person who does not have a history and is not known of dealing drugs is coerced by a cooperating informant, this coercion is unlawful and can be a defense to a charge of delivery of a controlled substance, conspiracy to deliver or possession with intent to deliver. Remember an informant who wants to avoid a long prison sentence, or even a short one, will do anything including talk someone into selling them drugs who otherwise would not be doing it.

confidential informant list wisconsin

The cooperating informant and the police have unlawfully entrapped the seller. The central inquiry in entrapment cases is whether law enforcement officials implanted a criminal design in the mind of an otherwise law-abiding citizen.

Absence of pre-disposition is necessary to establish and several things must be taken into account by a judge or jury. When a defendant raises the defense of entrapment, the prosecution has the burden of proving the defendant was not entrapped beyond a reasonable doubt.

The government must prove the defendant was pre-disposed to the particular criminal behavior they are accused of doing. The court or jury must look at several factors regarding disposition. The character or reputation of the defendant, including any prior criminal record; whether the suggestion of the criminal activity was initially made by the Government; whether the defendant was engaged in criminal activity for profit; whether the defendant evidenced reluctance to commit the offense, overcome only by repeated Government inducements or persuasion; and the nature of the inducement or persuasion supplied by the Government.

If the facts of the law enforcement conduct are not in dispute the court can dismiss the case as a matter of law if it finds abusive law enforcement practices and no defendant pre-disposition. Because informants will generally never admit to wrong doing, the entrapment defense must be presented to a jury and the government must prove the defendant was not entrapped beyond a reasonable doubt.

That means that if there is doubt whether the defendant was entrapped and that doubt is reasonable under the circumstances, the Defendant is entitled to a verdict of not guilty. Confidential informants along with police can also engage in entrapment when coercing a person to involve themselves into engaging in an increased amount of drugs that they would not have otherwise done in order to increase the sentence.

For instance, if defendant was usually dealing in small amounts of drugs like up to grams of a controlled substance but the informant repeatedly insists upon quantities over grams. The more weight involved, the higher penalty.

0 thoughts on “Confidential informant list wisconsin

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>