State v. Nellessen, 830 N.W.2d 266

Nellessen appeals a nonfinal order denying disclosure of a confidential informant's identity.
The circuit court denied in camera review under Wis. Stat. § 905.10(3)(b) due to insufficient information.
On June 28, 2011, Punke stopped Nellessen’s vehicle for obstructed view; officers found marijuana in a prescription bottle.
Cramm testified that a confidential informant provided a tip that contributed to the stop and investigation.
Nellessen moved to compel disclosure under § 905.10(3)(b) claiming the informant could testify about weaponizing knowledge of large quantities of marijuana.
The appellate court reverses, concluding an in camera review is mandated under § 905.10(3)(b) given the informant’s detailed information about transport of marijuana.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an in camera review is triggered under § 905.10(3)(b).	Nellessen argues a possible informant testimony warrants review.	State contends the information is insufficient to trigger review.	Yes; in camera review was triggered.
Whether the informant could provide testimony about Nellessen’s knowledge of marijuana in the trunk.	Informant might know whether Nellessen knew of the trunk marijuana.	Relevance is not enough; must show possible testimony affects guilt/innocence.	Informant could have testimony bearing on Nellessen’s knowledge; in camera review required.

State v. Outlaw, 108 Wis. 2d 112 (Wis. 1982) (two-step in camera framework; threshold for review)
State v. Trochinski, 2002 WI 56 (Wis. 2002) (de novo review; statutory interpretation)
State v. Cole, 2000 WI App 52 (Wis. 2000) (statutory interpretation; de novo review)
United States v. Day, 384 F.2d 464 (3d Cir. 1967) (in camera necessity to ascertain testimony)
United States v. Skeens, 449 F.2d 1066 (D.C. Cir. 1971) (in camera showing may be necessary)