No. 88-KK-1443 Precedential Processed

State v. Raney

Louisiana Supreme Court · Filed October 14, 1988 · 532 So. 2d 104

Also decided on this docket: La., November 18, 1988 533 So. 2d 6

Cited by

Hays v. State 856 So. 2d 64 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
Williams v. Taylor 803 So. 2d 268 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
Edwards v. Daugherty 729 So. 2d 1112 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
Dauzat v. Rapides Parish Police Jury 657 So. 2d 484 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Gebhardt v. State 652 So. 2d 150 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Andrus v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 650 So. 2d 275 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Ourso v. Grimm 630 So. 2d 963 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
McCullough v. Regional Transit Authority 593 So. 2d 731 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
Nolan v. Jefferson Downs, Inc. 592 So. 2d 831 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1991
State v. Campbell 566 So. 2d 1038 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
Porche v. Point Coupee General Hospital 554 So. 2d 1345 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Nichols v. Stone Container Corp. 552 So. 2d 688 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989

all 14 citing documents »

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

State v. Barrett 362 So. 2d 547
State v. Raggio 508 So. 2d 59
State v. McEwen 504 So. 2d 817
State v. Shropshire 471 So. 2d 707
State v. Gotro 532 So. 2d 102

Opinion text

In re Raney, Myles; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs; Parish of Calcasieu 14th Judicial District Court Div. “E” Number 4323-87; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Number KW87-1066. Granted. These cases, consolidated for purposes of review, are remanded to the district court for further proceedings. If the state has disclosed the names of the undercover officers in response to other motions for discovery, documents revealing the same information shall not be withheld on grounds that “[rjecords containing the identity of an undercover police officer or records which would tend to reveal the identity of an undercover police officer,” are not subject to disclosure as public records. La.R.S. 44:3 A(5). Once the identity of the undercover officer has been revealed, the privilege of withholding that information no longer serves its underlying purpose. Cf., State v. Dick, 362 So.2d 547, 550 (La.1978). Accordingly, if there are initial reports by the investigating officers whose identity has now been revealed, the court shall order the state to provide those reports to the defendants. State v. Raggio, 508 So.2d 59 (La.1987); State v. McEwen, 504 So.2d 817 (La.1987); State v. Shropshire, 471 So.2d 707 (La.1985). LEMMON, J., dissents for the reasons assigned in State v. Gotro, 532 So.2d 102 (La.1988).