Tex. R. Evid. 508

Informer’s Identity Privilege

sha256 cbfb407a7aba55c741c6526573cc6c50… · retrieved 7/15/2026, 8:29:35 PM · Supreme Court of Texas official rules PDF — txcourts.gov, verbatim · verified 8/5/2026 by TXEV-1 July reconcile (artifact-proven, dual-sourced)

Rule 508. Informer’s Identity Privilege
(a) General Rule. The United States, a state, or a subdivision of either has a privilege to refuse
to disclose a person’s identity if:
(1) the person has furnished information to a law enforcement officer or a member of a
legislative committee or its staff conducting an investigation of a possible violation
of law; and
(2) the information relates to or assists in the investigation.
(b) Who May Claim. The privilege may be claimed by an appropriate representative of the
public entity to which the informer furnished the information. The court in a criminal case
must reject the privilege claim if the state objects.
(c) Exceptions.
(1) Voluntary Disclosure; Informer a Witness. This privilege does not apply if:
(A) the informer’s identity or the informer’s interest in the communication’s
subject matter has been disclosed—by a privilege holder or the informer’s
own action—to a person who would have cause to resent the communication;
or
(B) the informer appears as a witness for the public entity.
(2) Testimony About the Merits.
(A) Criminal Case. In a criminal case, this privilege does not apply if the court
finds a reasonable probability exists that the informer can give testimony
necessary to a fair determination of guilt or innocence. If the court so finds
and the public entity elects not to disclose the informer’s identity:
25
(i) on the defendant’s motion, the court must dismiss the charges to
which the testimony would relate; or
(ii) on its own motion, the court may dismiss the charges to which the
testimony would relate.
(B) Certain Civil Cases. In a civil case in which the public entity is a party, this
privilege does not apply if the court finds a reasonable probability exists that
the informer can give testimony necessary to a fair determination of a material
issue on the merits. If the court so finds and the public entity elects not to
disclose the informer’s identity, the court may make any order that justice
requires.
(C) Procedures.
(i) If it appears that an informer may be able to give the testimony
required to invoke this exception and the public entity claims the
privilege, the court must give the public entity an opportunity to show
in camera facts relevant to determining whether this exception is met.
The showing should ordinarily be made by affidavits, but the court
may take testimony if it finds the matter cannot be satisfactorily
resolved by affidavits.
(ii) No counsel or party may attend the in camera showing.
(iii) The court must seal and preserve for appeal evidence submitted under
this subparagraph (2)(C). The evidence must not otherwise be
revealed without the public entity’s consent.
(3) Legality of Obtaining Evidence.
(A) Court May Order Disclosure. The court may order the public entity to
disclose an informer’s identity if:
(i) information from an informer is relied on to establish the legality of
the means by which evidence was obtained; and
(ii) the court is not satisfied that the information was received from an
informer reasonably believed to be reliable or credible.
(B) Procedures.
(i) On the public entity’s request, the court must order the disclosure be
made in camera.
26
(ii) No counsel or party may attend the in camera disclosure.
(iii) If the informer’s identity is disclosed in camera, the court must seal
and preserve for appeal the record of the in camera proceeding. The
record of the in camera proceeding must not otherwise be revealed
without the public entity’s consent.

Verbatim from the official publication; the only normalization is removal of the publisher's page headers. Verify against the official source for filing-critical use — court publications change without notice.