Does the disclosure of a confidential informant's identity need to be disclosed?

^7. Defendant argues Otte stands for the proposition that the informant's identity should have been disclosed because the informant had "'communications with [the defendant] which were monitored by the police.'" Otte concluded the identity of the informant did not need to be disclosed because there was nothing in the record "indicating that the informant was a participant in the offense with which [the defendant] was charged or had communications with [the defendant] which were monitored by the police." (Otte, supra, 214 Cal.App.3d at p. 1532.) Though Otte does list those factors in the disjunctive, the case upon which Otte relied, People v. McShann (1958) 50 Cal.2d 802, 808, involved a situation in which the informant was a participant in the offense (possession of heroin) and the conversation that was monitored took place during the commission of the offense (the call was to arrange the purchase of heroin). The principle is thus inapplicable here, where the informant was not involved in the offense and his recorded conversation with defendant did not take place during the commission of the offense.