Does the Identity of a Confidential Informant Have to Be Disclosed in Florida?

April 21, 2025 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense Social Share

In Florida, laws exist surrounding the disclosure of a confidential informant’s identity by prosecutors to the defense before a trial. While the State has the right to withhold the identifying information of informants for their safety in certain situations, this is subject to constitutional restrictions. This article will explain what the Florida legislature and courts have said about when prosecutors must disclose a confidential informant’s identity before a trial.

Florida’s laws protecting the identities of confidential informants are influenced in part by the murder of Rachel Hoffman in 2008. Hoffman was serving as an informant to Tallahassee police, hoping to purchase guns and drugs from two suspected dealers. A communication issue occurred during the attempted controlled buy, and the two suspects murdered Hoffman before police were able to rescue her.

The potential for confidential informants to be targeted by individuals ensnared in police stings is part of the reason their identity may be withheld. In Florida, prosecutors are given fairly broad discretion to withhold the names and other identifying information of confidential informants. 

A confidential informant is defined by Fla. Stat. 914.28 as someone who cooperates with a law enforcement agency confidentially in order to protect the person or the agency’s intelligence gathering or investigative efforts. This is done to avoid arrest or prosecution for a crime, or mitigate punishment for a crime. 

Because of their familiarity with the targets of police stings, typically through past criminal dealings, confidential informants are often instructed by law enforcement to engage in “controlled buys” of drugs or purchase other contraband from suspects. These interactions are monitored by police, and can lead to the “target offender’s” (suspect’s) arrest.

When preparing for trial, someone who was arrested after being the target of a controlled buy involving a confidential informant may wish to know the identity of that informant. They may request the audio or video tapes of the controlled buy itself, the name of the informant, or both. This raises the question of when the State is permitted to deny such requests, even though such material (such as surveillance video) is typically subject to pretrial disclosure under discovery rules.

The first major case regarding this issue was Roviaro v. U.S., 353 U.S. 53 (1957). In Roviaro, the U.S. Supreme Court laid out a two-step balancing test for when the State is required to disclose the identity of a confidential informant to the defense before trial. This requires weighing the government’s interest in keeping the informant’s identity a secret and the defendant’s interest in a fair trial.

Roviaro recognized that in cases where the identity of the informant would be potentially “relevant and helpful” to the defense – or is generally necessary to ensure due process (“a fair determination of cause”) – the identity of a confidential informant must be turned over. Put simply, a defendant is not automatically entitled to this information, but can often make a valid claim under Roviaro that they should receive it. 

In accordance with Roviaro, Florida’s courts have balanced the interests of both prosecutors and the defense in deciding whether a confidential informant’s identity – or audio and video tapes that inadvertently reveal this – must be given to the defense before trial. Generally, Florida courts have held that if the informant is merely present during the transaction, or acted as a tipster, their identity can be withheld. State v. Zamora, 534 So.2d 864 (Fla 3rd DCA 1988).

In closer cases, when a defense has made a potentially valid claim regarding the need for disclosure, a court may order an in-camera review of the informant’s testimony to determine whether this would be possibly helpful to the defense. In line with Roviaro, if the informant’s testimony offers a possible benefit to the defendant, disclosure of their identity is required. State v. Pautier, 548 So.2d 709 (Fla 3rd DCA 1989).

In cases where an informant is the only direct participant in the transaction, disclosure is required as a matter of due process under Roviaro. State v. Williams, 389 So.3d 578 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2023). Williams held that disclosure of a confidential informant’s identity is required when a defendant is charged with selling or delivering illegal drugs to the informant, and the informant is the sole participant in the transaction. This is the case even if the controlled buy was audio and video recorded by police.

It is clear Florida law takes the disclosure of a confidential informant’s identity seriously. Under certain circumstances, prosecutors may be entitled to withhold this from the defense, such as when the informant is a tipster or merely present during the transaction. But if the informant is the sole purchaser and witness in a controlled buy, or their testimony may be otherwise helpful to the defense, disclosure is required.

If someone is charged in a case involving a confidential informant, it is critical to seek out experienced and trusted legal representation as soon as possible. This vital decision could make the difference in whether or not a person is subject to serious criminal and financial penalties.

Don Pumphrey, Jr. Former Prosecutor, Former State Police Officer, Lifetime Member of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; for over 25 years as a private defense attorney who is Trusted, Experienced, Aggressive in Criminal Defense as a Trial Attorney, Criminal Lawyer, Criminal Defense Lawyer for the accused in Florida State Courts located in Tallahassee, Florida but handling cases throughout the State of Florida.

Experienced Criminal Defense Lawyers in Tallahassee, FL

Don Pumphrey, Jr. and the criminal defense lawyers at Pumphrey Law have decades of experience fighting on behalf of clients and winning. Call Pumphrey Law now at (850) 681-7777 to learn more about what we can do for you. Our lawyers will be happy to provide you with a free consultation.

  Social Share