2015 ORS 40.275¹
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]

(Rule 510)

Notes of Decisions

Trial court properly denied defendant's mo­tion to disclose identity of alleged confidential informant under this pro­vi­sion, because per­son whose identity defendant sought was not unknown informant but was eye witness whose identity state had no duty to disclose because it did not intend to call per­son as witness. State v. Pena, 108 Or App 171, 813 P2d 1134 (1991), Sup Ct review denied

Informant's name may be disclosed, even for in camera disclosure, only if trial court is not satisfied that in­for­ma­­tion was received from informer reasonably believed to be reliable or credible. State v. Young, 108 Or App 196, 816 P2d 612 (1991), Sup Ct review denied

Trial court may disclose identity of informant only if informant provides evidence useful to defendant's de­fense. State v. Wood, 114 Or App 601, 836 P2d 176 (1992), Sup Ct review denied; State v. Vatland, 123 Or App 577, 860 P2d 820 (1993), Sup Ct review denied

Chapter 40

(Generally)

Notes of Decisions

General rule is that polygraph evidence is inadmissible in pro­ceed­ing governed by Oregon Evidence Code. State v. Brown, 297 Or 404, 687 P2d 751 (1984)

Party could introduce results of polygraph test taken by spouse for purpose of showing that response of party upon learning polygraph results was reasonable. Fromdahl and Fromdahl, 314 Or 496, 840 P2d 683 (1992)

Where state law completely precludes reliable, ma­te­ri­ally exculpatory evidence, exclusion of that evidence violates Due Process Clauses of United States Constitu­tion. State v. Cazares-Mendez, 233 Or App 310, 227 P3d 172 (2010), aff'd State v. Cazares-Mendez/Reyes-Sanchez, 350 Or 491, 256 P3d 104 (2011)

Oregon Evidence Code articulates min­i­mum standards of reliability that apply to many types of evidence for admissibility, including eyewitness identifica­tion evidence, and parties must employ code to address admissibility of eyewitness testimony. State v. Lawson/James, 352 Or 724, 291 P3d 673 (2012)

Law Review Cita­tions

59 OLR 43 (1980); 19 WLR 343 (1983)

Chapter 40

Evidence Code

Annota­tions are listed under the heading "Under former similar statute" if they predate the adop­tion of the Evidence Code, which went into effect January 1, 1982.


1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 40—Evidence Code, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors040.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2015, Chapter 40, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano040.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
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.