State v. Calhoun, 2012 Ohio 2374

Dec. 29, 2010, Akron police observed Calhoun hand-to-hand drug sale; Wilfred bought heroin and was detained; Calhoun fled in another vehicle and was later stopped; heroin and paraphernalia found on the female and, later, on Calhoun.
Police learned of Apartment 1011 from a confidential informant weeks before, leading to a search with tenant Sleeth’s consent; the police recovered a safe believed to house Calhoun’s drugs.
A warrant was obtained for the safe after a search of the apartment; the safe contained over 360 grams of heroin and $19,000.
Calhoun was indicted on multiple drug charges stemming from the safe’s contents; he moved to suppress and sought disclosure of the confidential informant; suppression hearing held; the trial court denied the motion to disclose.
Calhoun ultimately pleaded no contest to reduced charges and received nine years’ imprisonment; on appeal, he challenged the trial court’s denial of disclosure of the informant’s identity.
The appellate court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion in denying disclosure and upholding the trial court’s ruling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the confidential informant’s identity must be disclosed	Calhoun argues disclosure is necessary to test credibility and resolve material facts.	State contends informant merely provided offense-related information, not a witness to events needing disclosure.	No abuse of discretion; disclosure not required.

State v. Bays, 87 Ohio St.3d 15 (1999) (informant privilege protects anonymity; disclosure only where essential)
State v. Roe, 26 Ohio St.2d 243 (1971) (informant privilege promotes law enforcement, must be balanced against confrontation rights)
State v. Williams, 4 Ohio St.3d 74 (1983) (balance disclosure against privilege when informant’s testimony would help or test defense)
State v. Smith, 2003-Ohio-1306 (9th Dist.) (abuse of discretion standard; informant identity disclosure limited to material need)