Rule 510. Identity of informer
(1) As used in this section, “unit of government” means:
(a) The federal government or any state or political subdivision thereof;
(b) A university that has commissioned police officers under ORS 352.121 (University police departments and officers) or 353.125 (Creation of police department and commission of police officers); or
(c) A tribal government as defined in ORS 181A.680 (Definitions for ORS 181A.680 to 181A.692), if the information referred to in this section relates to or assists in an investigation conducted by an authorized tribal police officer as defined in ORS 181A.680 (Definitions for ORS 181A.680 to 181A.692).
(2) A unit of government 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.
(3) The privilege created by this section may be claimed by an appropriate representative of the unit of government if the information was furnished to an officer thereof.
(4) No privilege exists under this section:
(a) If the identity of the informer or the informer’s interest in the subject matter of the 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 for the unit of government.
(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 unit of government is a party, and the unit of government invokes the privilege, and the judge gives the unit of government an opportunity to show in camera facts relevant to determining whether the informer can, in fact, supply that testimony. The showing will ordinarily be in the form of affidavits, but the judge may direct that testimony be taken if the judge finds that the matter cannot be resolved satisfactorily upon affidavit. If the judge finds that there is a reasonable probability that the informer can give the testimony, and the unit of government elects not to disclose identity of the informer, 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 the judge’s own motion. In civil cases, the judge 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 consent of the unit of government. All counsel and parties shall be permitted to be present at every stage of proceedings under this paragraph except a showing in camera, at which no counsel or party shall be 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. The judge may require the identity of the informer to be disclosed. The judge shall, on request of the unit of 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 paragraph 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 unit of government. [1981 c.892 §38; 2011 c.506 §2; 2011 c.644 §§10,37; 2013 c.180 §§2,3; 2015 c.174 §2]
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.