§15A‑978. Motion to suppress evidence in superior court or districtcourt; challenge of probable cause supporting search on grounds oftruthfulness; when identity of informant must be disclosed.
(a) A defendant maycontest the validity of a search warrant and the admissibility of evidenceobtained thereunder by contesting the truthfulness of the testimony showingprobable cause for its issuance. The defendant may contest the truthfulness ofthe testimony by cross‑examination or by offering evidence. For thepurposes of this section, truthful testimony is testimony which reports in goodfaith the circumstances relied on to establish probable cause.
(b) In any proceedingon a motion to suppress evidence pursuant to this section in which thetruthfulness of the testimony presented to establish probable cause iscontested and the testimony includes a report of information furnished by aninformant whose identity is not disclosed in the testimony, the defendant isentitled to be informed of the informant's identity unless:
(1) The evidence soughtto be suppressed was seized by authority of a search warrant or incident to anarrest with warrant; or
(2) There iscorroboration of the informant's existence independent of the testimony inquestion.
The provisions of subdivisions(b)(1) and (b)(2) do not apply to situations in which disclosure of aninformant's identity is required by controlling constitutional decisions.
(c) This section doesnot limit the right of a defendant to contest the truthfulness of testimony offeredin support of a search made without a warrant. (1973, c. 1286, s. 1.)
§15A‑978. Motion to suppress evidence in superior court or districtcourt; challenge of probable cause supporting search on grounds oftruthfulness; when identity of informant must be disclosed.
(a) A defendant maycontest the validity of a search warrant and the admissibility of evidenceobtained thereunder by contesting the truthfulness of the testimony showingprobable cause for its issuance. The defendant may contest the truthfulness ofthe testimony by cross‑examination or by offering evidence. For thepurposes of this section, truthful testimony is testimony which reports in goodfaith the circumstances relied on to establish probable cause.
(b) In any proceedingon a motion to suppress evidence pursuant to this section in which thetruthfulness of the testimony presented to establish probable cause iscontested and the testimony includes a report of information furnished by aninformant whose identity is not disclosed in the testimony, the defendant isentitled to be informed of the informant's identity unless:
(1) The evidence soughtto be suppressed was seized by authority of a search warrant or incident to anarrest with warrant; or
(2) There iscorroboration of the informant's existence independent of the testimony inquestion.
The provisions of subdivisions(b)(1) and (b)(2) do not apply to situations in which disclosure of aninformant's identity is required by controlling constitutional decisions.
(c) This section doesnot limit the right of a defendant to contest the truthfulness of testimony offeredin support of a search made without a warrant. (1973, c. 1286, s. 1.)
§15A‑978. Motion to suppress evidence in superior court or districtcourt; challenge of probable cause supporting search on grounds oftruthfulness; when identity of informant must be disclosed.
(a) A defendant maycontest the validity of a search warrant and the admissibility of evidenceobtained thereunder by contesting the truthfulness of the testimony showingprobable cause for its issuance. The defendant may contest the truthfulness ofthe testimony by cross‑examination or by offering evidence. For thepurposes of this section, truthful testimony is testimony which reports in goodfaith the circumstances relied on to establish probable cause.
(b) In any proceedingon a motion to suppress evidence pursuant to this section in which thetruthfulness of the testimony presented to establish probable cause iscontested and the testimony includes a report of information furnished by aninformant whose identity is not disclosed in the testimony, the defendant isentitled to be informed of the informant's identity unless:
(1) The evidence soughtto be suppressed was seized by authority of a search warrant or incident to anarrest with warrant; or
(2) There iscorroboration of the informant's existence independent of the testimony inquestion.
The provisions of subdivisions(b)(1) and (b)(2) do not apply to situations in which disclosure of aninformant's identity is required by controlling constitutional decisions.
(c) This section doesnot limit the right of a defendant to contest the truthfulness of testimony offeredin support of a search made without a warrant. (1973, c. 1286, s. 1.)
