474 P.3d 815
Mont.2020Background
- Northwest Drug Task Force investigated Matthew Soto; a confidential informant conducted a controlled buy of ~0.5 grams of methamphetamine on Feb. 5, 2018; the buy was outfitted with an electronic transmitting device and later tested positive for methamphetamine.
- Law enforcement was within 1–2 feet of the transaction, observed and heard the exchange, and an agent who provided the informant $60 was available to testify at trial.
- Soto was charged with felony drug distribution; he moved to dismiss for the State’s failure to disclose the confidential informant’s identity in discovery.
- Agents testified the informant had worked prior matters and was involved in a pending investigation; they asserted disclosure would risk the informant’s safety and operational effectiveness and harm future informant cooperation.
- The District Court summarily denied Soto’s motion to dismiss and refused to order disclosure; Soto pled guilty to an amended charge while reserving the right to appeal the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State was required to disclose the confidential informant’s identity | State: informant privilege applies; nondisclosure protects informant safety and ongoing operational effectiveness; officers were eyewitnesses and could testify | Soto: nondisclosure hampered his ability to investigate/establish an entrapment defense; identity might show motive/criminal history | Court: affirmed—balancing test favors nondisclosure because officers observed the buy and could testify, informant’s disclosure posed substantial operational risk, and Soto offered only speculation about entrapment |
Key Cases Cited
- Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (1957) (established balancing test for disclosure of informant identity)
- State v. Walston, 401 Mont. 15 (2020) (applies Roviaro balancing in Montana; evaluates informant’s role and risk to operational effectiveness)
- United States v. Kerris, 748 F.2d 610 (11th Cir. 1984) (assesses informant participation level and relevance to defense)
- United States v. Sharp, 778 F.2d 1182 (6th Cir. 1985) (discusses use of in camera procedures and defendant’s burden to adduce evidence of entrapment)
- State v. Chapman, 679 P.2d 1210 (Mont. 1984) (Montana precedent applying Roviaro balancing)