Confidential Informant List Indiana -

: Informants are assigned a unique, non-reusable CI number obtained from the Criminal Intelligence Unit (CIU). This number is used in reports to reference the individual without revealing their true name. Suitability Reports

Possessing or distributing an actual confidential informant list is a fast track to federal charges. At a minimum, you could face or Tampering with a Witness . At worst, if an informant is harmed based on that list, you’re looking at conspiracy to commit murder or federal retaliation charges.

If the warrant was based on a CI whose reliability was not properly established by the officer, the evidence might be suppressed.

A major area of litigation involves whether an informant on a state registry overstepped boundaries to induce a citizen to commit a crime they otherwise wouldn't have committed. Indiana courts look closely at the "predisposition" of the defendant in these scenarios.

The Indiana State Police (ISP) requires that a confidential informant number be assigned to each person. This unique number is used in reports, not their name 1.2.1. confidential informant list indiana

Informants are evaluated quarterly using State Form #42532, which classifies them as "reliable," "partly reliable," or "unreliable" based on a summary of their work. Public Access and Disclosure Rules

A confidential informant (CI) is an individual who provides information to law enforcement about suspected criminal activity, usually in exchange for some form of consideration. This can include leniency in their own legal matters, reduced charges, financial compensation, or other benefits. CIs are often individuals who are, or have been, embedded within criminal enterprises, making them invaluable sources of real-time intelligence.

The only formal way to learn a CI’s identity is through a legal process during a criminal case: Motion for Discovery

If a search warrant was granted based on an informant's tip, the defense may request a Franks hearing, arguing that the law enforcement officer knowingly or recklessly included false information regarding the informant's reliability to secure the warrant. Conclusion : Informants are assigned a unique, non-reusable CI

This public link is valid for 7 days and shares a thread, including any personal information you added. This link or copies made by others cannot be deleted. If you share with third parties, their policies apply. Can’t copy the link right now. Try again later.

The question of accessing a "confidential informant list Indiana" reveals a carefully constructed legal architecture designed to protect both the integrity of criminal investigations and the safety of individuals who assist law enforcement. Under Indiana's Access to Public Records Act, CI identities are exempt from disclosure. Under the common law informer's privilege, prosecutors may withhold CI information from criminal defendants unless the defendant can demonstrate that disclosure is relevant and helpful to the defense or necessary for a fair trial.

Why not? The answer lies in two critical factors:

Under Indiana’s Access to Public Records Act (APRA) (Ind. Code § 5-14-3-4), records that would: At a minimum, you could face or Tampering with a Witness

A: While it is not illegal for a private citizen to gather information from public sources, creating a "snitch list" with the intent to expose or harass individuals is highly dangerous and could expose the creator to serious civil or criminal liability, especially if it leads to retaliation or harm.

Confidential Informant List Indiana: Law, Disclosure, and Criminal Defense

Indiana’s Access to Public Records Act (IC 5-14-3) is robust. In general, Hoosiers have the right to inspect most law enforcement records. However, the law contains specific exemptions for:

Law enforcement agencies in Indiana are mandated to follow strict procedures when utilizing CIs to protect the integrity of investigations.

Indiana recognizes a governmental privilege to withhold informant identities, but it is not absolute. The Indiana Supreme Court in Snyder v. State (1993) and Davis v. State (1998) outlined a three-part inquiry: