Word Salad for Law Enforcement: Confidential Human Source (“CHS”), adopted by some courts

Confidential Human Source (“CHS”) v. Confidential Informant (“CI”) v. Citizen Informant (Citizen Informant) v. Snitch (Snitch)

“Confidential Human Source (CHS)” appears to have started about 2003, but it’s been more popular of late in the federal system. I’ve seen it more often in federal criminal complaints and search warrants, hardly at all in state court. And it’s made it into 81 criminal opinions on Lexis (and one FOIA case). Must be a DoJ and DHS memo went out to desist from using just confidential informant (“CI”) to humanize the “snitch.” It’s even supplanting “citizen informant” or “eyewitness” or “victim,” those with already built-in credibility. No informant hearsay problem with the latter.

Maybe it’s because it sounds so much better than CI, or the dreaded “snitch” that is so much more telling, not to mention fun to use, in front of a jury, especially if the snitch is on the stand, who often flinches at the word.

Why “confidential human sources”? What’s the alternative? Confidential inhuman sources? Confidential canine sources? Do those dog sources have handlers or are they feral? Confidential mechanical sources? Maybe to differentiate a wiretap? Why use it at all? To obfuscate reality?

This entry was posted in Informant hearsay. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.