◆ SpookStack

62 Nos. 77-1698, 77-1210 & 77-1370 plaintiffs contend that the search warrant was merely a pretext for the raid and that misrepresentations in the affidavit would constitute evidence of a conspiracy to violate the civil rights of the plaintiits. If Groth did not receive the information contained in his affidavit from a — informant, this contention would be strength- ened. In his complaint for the search warrant, Groth stated that his informant had been inside the Hampton apartment on December 1 and had seen illegal weapons. The complaint also stated that this informant had provided reliable information which led to two prior, successful raids for illegal weapons and information which led to several convictions. At his deposition five years later, Groth said that this informant had told him about illegal weapons, persons who frequented the apartment, and the layout of the apartment. When asked about the informant’s identity and reliability, however, Groth refused to elaborate further upon the information contained in the affidavit, saying that to do so would endanger the lives of other persons. At trial Groth persisted in his refusal to answer questions which related to the identity of the informant. Plaintiffs moved to compel his testimony. The trial judge then held a private, in camera, off-the-record meeting with Groth in which he asked him only one question—the identity of his informant. Groth refused to answer, saying that he would maintain his silence even if it would lead to “consequences” for him. On the record the court repeated the question and received the same answer. The court then denied plaintiffs’ motion to compel Groth’s testimony. . The trial court did not permit the development of a record on the questions of Groth’s credibility regarding the existence and reliability of his informant and the 388 continued . received from O’Neal. And the sufficiency of O’Neal’s infor- mation alone as the basis for a warrant is questionable. See Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964). See also Franks v. Delaware, 46 U.S.L.W. 4869 (June 26, 1978); United States v. Carmichael, 489 F.2d 983 (7th Cir. 1978) (en banc).