The court properly permitted the undercover officer to testify using only his shield number, and without revealing his name to the defense. The officer was involved in ongoing investigations in the vicinity of the instant sales, and had frequently been threatened and assaulted during undercover operations. The concerns for the officer's safety are appropriate reasons for a court to maintain his anonymity. That decision did not violate defendant's right of confrontation (...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
