LawWiki
HomeCodesSearchGlossaryAPIAbout
LawWiki

Plain English summaries of California law with zero-hallucination AI. Every summary is verified against official source text.

Product

  • Search
  • Codes
  • About

Legal

  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Disclaimer

© 2026 LawWiki. All rights reserved.

HomeEvidence CodeDiv. 8Ch. 4Art. 9§ 1042 Privileged Information In Criminal Cases

§ 1042 Privileged Information In Criminal Cases

Evidence Code·California
AI Summary·Official Text·Key Terms·Related Statutes·References
AI SummaryVerified

§ 1042 Privileged Information In Criminal Cases

Key Takeaways

  • •If the government hides important info in a criminal case, the judge can decide against them if that info is needed to be fair.
  • •The police don’t have to tell who gave them a tip if they got a search warrant and the tip helped them find evidence.
  • •A judge can listen to a secret tipster’s info in private to decide if it’s fair to hide their name, but only if the tipster isn’t a key witness.
  • •If the defendant says the tipster is important for their defense, the court will check in secret if hiding the tipster’s name could make the trial unfair.

Example

The police arrest someone for selling drugs after a tip from a secret informant. The informant isn’t a witness to the actual sale but told the police where to look.

The police don’t have to say who the informant is if the judge believes the tip was reliable. But if the defendant says the informant is needed to prove they’re innocent, the judge will check in private if hiding the name would make the trial unfair.

AI-generated — May contain errors. Not legal advice. Always verify source.

Official Source
View on CA.gov

§ 1042 Privileged Information In Criminal Cases

(a) Except where disclosure is forbidden by an act of the Congress of the United States, if a claim of privilege under this article by the state or a public entity in this state is sustained in a criminal proceeding, the presiding officer shall make such order or finding of fact adverse to the public entity bringing the proceeding as is required by law upon any issue in the proceeding to which the privileged information is material. (b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), where a search is made pursuant to a warrant valid on its face, the public entity bringing a criminal proceeding is not required to reveal to the defendant official information or the identity of an informer in order to establish the legality of the search or the admissibility of any evidence obtained as a result of it. (c) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), in any preliminary hearing, criminal trial, or other criminal proceeding, any otherwise admissible evidence of information communicated to a peace officer by a confidential informant, who is not a material witness to the guilt or innocence of the accused of the offense charged, is admissible on the issue of reasonable cause to make an arrest or search without requiring that the name or identity of the informant be disclosed if the judge or magistrate is satisfied, based upon evidence produced in open court, out of the presence of the jury, that such information was received from a reliable informant and in his discretion does not require such disclosure. (d) When, in any such criminal proceeding, a party demands disclosure of the identity of the informant on the ground the informant is a material witness on the issue of guilt, the court shall conduct a hearing at which all parties may present evidence on the issue of disclosure. Such hearing shall be conducted outside the presence of the jury, if any. During the hearing, if the privilege provided for in Section 1041 is claimed by a person authorized to do so or if a person who is authorized to claim such privilege refuses to answer any question on the ground that the answer would tend to disclose the identity of the informant, the prosecuting attorney may request that the court hold an in camera hearing. If such a request is made, the court shall hold such a hearing outside the presence of the defendant and his counsel. At the in camera hearing, the prosecution may offer evidence which would tend to disclose or which discloses the identity of the informant to aid the court in its determination whether there is a reasonable possibility that nondisclosure might deprive the defendant of a fair trial. A reporter shall be present at the in camera hearing. Any transcription of the proceedings at the in camera hearing, as well as any physical evidence presented at the hearing, shall be ordered sealed by the court, and only a court may have access to its contents. The court shall not order disclosure, nor strike the testimony of the witness who invokes the privilege, nor dismiss the criminal proceeding, if the party offering the witness refuses to disclose the identity of the informant, unless, based upon the evidence presented at the hearing held in the presence of the defendant and his counsel and the evidence presented at the in camera hearing, the court concludes that there is a reasonable possibility that nondisclosure might deprive the defendant of a fair trial. (Amended by Stats. 1969, Ch. 1412.)

Last verified: January 22, 2026

Key Terms

informationevidenceidentityhearingtrialclaimdefendantarrest

Related Statutes

  • § 1035.4 Sexual Assault Counselor Confidentiality
  • § 1062 Trade Secret Court Closure
  • § 1045 Peace Officer Complaint Records
  • § 782 Sexual Conduct Evidence Rules
  • § 1023 Sanity Determination Privilege Exception

References

  • Official text at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
  • California Legislature. Evidence Code. Section 1042.
View Official Source