Here is an interesting case from Alaska Beacon in the USA about the exposure of a confidential informant. The claim is that the informant (human source) was exposed as a result of the involvement of Alaska State Troopers in a reality television program. Jane Doe is suing the Department of Public Safety and the Television company.
While obviously it will come down to a court to decide any negligence by either of the two parties, the case does raise serious questions. Here are a few to start:
Why was the particular episode filmed if a confidential informant was involved?
What links, direct or indirect , to the informant were conveyed in the program?
What training did the oficers involved in the management of the informant have?
Where the risks properly identified?
What did the Chief/Head of Agency know about what was being done?
Is there a record of the decisons?
It is the legal responsibility of the the law enforcement agency to protect the informant, there is still a responsibility of the production company of they were informed.
While it is important for the police to show the public the nature of the work they undertake, any type of clandestine work carries with it significant risk . The key question here for the court to decide is where the risks properly identified and how were they then managed.
The first things the lawyer should be looking for are the entire source records for this source, the agency’s policy and procedures for managing informants, the training records of the officers involved specifically regarding their ability to manage informants properly and any records relating to the content of the television company.
If the confidential informant was identified by name to the television company that would be a major concern.
There are lessons to be learned here and we will follow the case with interest.