Commonwealth v. Koonce, 190 A.3d 1204

Police used a confidential informant (CI) to arrange a controlled buy of one pound of marijuana from someone called "Pope." The CI provided a New York phone number and said Pope might be with a woman named "Ava."
The CI and CI’s vehicle were searched; the CI was given $3,600 in prerecorded currency placed in a black backpack in the trunk as the buy signal. Police surveilled a Wendy’s parking lot where the meet was scheduled.
Appellant (Koonce) met the CI inside Wendy’s, left, returned with a black backpack, entered the CI’s car, and less than three minutes later the CI went to the trunk, retrieved the money, and returned to the car. Police then arrested Koonce and recovered ~1 lb marijuana from the CI’s backpack and the prerecorded money from Koonce.
Koonce moved to suppress the physical evidence and to compel disclosure of the CI’s identity; the suppression court denied both motions after a hearing.
Koonce submitted to a stipulated non-jury bench trial incorporating the suppression testimony, was convicted of possession with intent to deliver marijuana, sentenced to four years’ reporting probation, and appealed.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred by refusing to order disclosure of CI's identity	Koonce: CI was sole eyewitness to the hand-to-hand transaction and needed to show CI "framed" him; identity is material and reasonable to obtain	Commonwealth: CI privilege is qualified; Koonce failed to show materiality/reasonableness and disclosure would risk CI safety; officers corroborated CI’s tip by observation	Trial court did not abuse discretion; disclosure not required because defendant failed to make threshold showing and CI safety concerns supported nondisclosure
Whether officers lacked probable cause to arrest without a warrant	Koonce: CI tip was insufficiently corroborated (no physical description, cell phone not traced to a person, no pre-arrest observation of contraband) so arrest lacked probable cause	Commonwealth: CI had prior reliable history and officers observed the controlled buy unfold as planned; totality of circumstances established probable cause	Arrest was supported by probable cause; seizure admissible

Commonwealth v. Marsh, 997 A.2d 318 (Pa. 2010) (balancing informant privilege against defendant's need; threshold showing required)
Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (U.S. 1957) (informant-identity privilege must yield when disclosure is essential to a fair determination)
Commonwealth v. Payne, 656 A.2d 77 (Pa. 1994) (disclosure required where single officer plus CI were only witnesses and defendant presented mistaken identity evidence)
Commonwealth v. Herron, 380 A.2d 1228 (Pa. 1977) (defendant must make factual showing that informant identity might be helpful)
Commonwealth v. Bing, 713 A.2d 56 (Pa. 1998) (informant privilege is qualified and court must balance factors)
Commonwealth v. Gagliardi, 128 A.3d 790 (Pa. Super. 2015) (CI reliability/corroboration can supply probable cause)
Commonwealth v. Thompson, 985 A.2d 928 (Pa. 2009) (probable cause assessed under totality of circumstances; probability, not prima facie proof)