Legal Definitions - Darden hearing

A Darden hearing is a special, private court proceeding held in criminal cases. Its purpose is to help a judge decide whether law enforcement had a legitimate reason (known as "probable cause") to make an arrest or conduct a search, especially when the police's justification relies heavily on information provided by an anonymous or confidential informant.

This hearing takes place when there isn't enough evidence to establish probable cause *apart from* what an arresting officer says they learned from an informant. During a Darden hearing, the defense attorney is usually not present. This exclusion is to protect the informant's identity, which could put them at risk. However, the defense attorney can often submit questions for the judge to ask the officer about the informant and the information they provided.

The judge's role is to privately question the officer to determine if the informant is reliable and if their information was credible enough to establish probable cause, all without revealing who the informant is to the defense or the public. This process aims to balance the need to protect informants with the defendant's right to challenge the basis of their arrest or search.

Here are some examples illustrating a Darden hearing:

• Example 1: Challenging a Drug Arrest

  Imagine police arrest someone for possessing illegal drugs. The only reason they approached and searched the individual was an anonymous tip received moments earlier, describing the person and their location. The defense attorney argues that the police lacked "probable cause" for the arrest because the anonymous tipster's reliability is unknown. In this situation, the court might hold a Darden hearing. The judge would privately question the police officer about the anonymous tipster's past reliability, the specific details provided, and how the information was corroborated, without revealing the tipster's identity to the defense. This helps the judge determine if the tip was credible enough to justify the arrest.

• Example 2: Validity of a Search Warrant

  Suppose police obtain a search warrant for a specific apartment based on an affidavit that heavily cites information from a confidential informant who claimed to have seen stolen electronics inside. The informant's identity is kept secret to ensure their safety. If the defense challenges the search warrant's validity, arguing that the affidavit didn't establish sufficient probable cause without more details about the informant's credibility, a Darden hearing could be ordered. The judge would then privately review the informant's history, the specific details they provided, and any corroborating evidence, to decide if the warrant was properly issued based on reliable information, all while protecting the informant's anonymity.

• Example 3: Questioning a Stop and Frisk

  Consider a scenario where an individual is stopped and frisked by an officer based on a call from an anonymous source claiming the person, matching a specific description, was carrying an illegal weapon in a public park. The officer finds a weapon, and the individual is charged. The defense challenges the legality of the stop and frisk, asserting that the officer lacked "reasonable suspicion" or "probable cause" to initiate it, as the anonymous tip was unverified. A Darden hearing would allow the judge to privately assess the reliability of the anonymous tip and the basis for the officer's actions, ensuring the tip wasn't merely a random or malicious report, without disclosing the informant's identity to the defense.