STATE v. JEAN (2019)

We treat this State appeal from an order to disclose the identity of a confidential informant as a petition for writ of certiorari and grant it. See, e.g., State v. Borrego, 970 So.2d 465, 466 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (holding that an order requiring disclosure of a confidential informant was reviewable by way of certiorari where there was no adequate remedy on appeal); State v. Devoid, 706 So.2d 924, 925 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (same). The trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by ordering the disclosure without first conducting the in-camera hearing the law requires. See State v. Roberts, 686 So.2d 722, 723 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (“Once a defendant carries an initial burden of showing that disclosure is necessary to a specific defense, the trial court should hold an in camera hearing to determine, in fact, whether the disclosure would be relevant and helpful to the defense.”); see also Bailey v. State, 994 So.2d 1256, 1258 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (“When a defendant files a sworn motion or affidavit alleging facts regarding the informant's involvement that, if true, would support the possibility of a specific defense, the trial court is required to conduct an in-camera hearing to consider the necessity of the informant's testimony and the State's interest in nondisclosure.”). We accordingly quash the order to disclose the identity of the confidential informant.

Petition granted; order quashed.

PER CURIAM.

SILBERMAN, LUCAS, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.