People v. Brock, 976 N.E.2d 631

Brock was convicted of unlawful delivery of a controlled substance and sentenced to 25 years as a Class X offender.
On appeal, Brock contends his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress the video recording of the drug transaction.
The State introduced a video recording made by a confidential informant during a controlled purchase on April 30, 2010, which Morris testified accurately depicted the events.
Testimony also included Baxter (confidential source) and Sergeant Morgan; a May 7, 2010 search yielded a scale, residue, blades, bags, and a cell phone.
The trial court denied a motion for a new trial; the appellate issue centers on Strickland performance and Illinois Constitution art. I, §6 privacy protections.
The court held Brock cannot show ineffective assistance because suppressing the video would not have been warranted under article I, §6 given the facts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance for not suppressing video	Brock argues counsel failed to suppress the video.	State contends suppression would fail under the privacy right analyzed.	No ineffective assistance; suppression would not have succeeded.
Illinois Constitution art. I, §6 applicability to the video	privacy rights extend to suppress video from informant.	privacy interest not violated given informant-worn camera and consent concepts.	No suppression; reasonable expectation of privacy not violated.
Effect of inviting Morris into Brock's home on privacy	Invite into home creates privacy expectation for video evidence.	Invitation does not entitle greater privacy when committing crime with informant.	No basis to suppress; invitation does not bar admissibility here.

People v. Meyer, 402 Ill. App. 3d 1089 (2010) (informant-camera purchase case; no constitutionally protected privacy interest)
Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293 (1966) (no Fourth Amendment protection for what defendant exposes to others)
Caballes, 221 Ill. 2d 282 (2006) (Illinois privacy clause extends beyond federal Fourth Amendment)
Edwards, 337 Ill. App. 3d 912 (2002) (plain language of art. I, §6; not all nonconsensual eavesdropping; privacy reasonableness analysis)
Coleman, 227 Ill. 2d 426 (2008) (rigorous eavesdropping statute; consent and authorization considerations)
Kurth, 34 Ill. 2d 387 (1966) (statutory eavesdropping considerations; discussion of consent scenarios)
Lewis v. United States, 385 U.S. 206 (1966) (home as private space; deception and privacy in surveillance context)
Petrenko, 237 Ill. 2d 490 (2010) (Strickland standard for ineffective assistance)
Evans, 209 Ill. 2d 194 (2004) (Strickland prejudice standard)
Clendenin, 238 Ill. 2d 302 (2010) (Strickland performance standard and prejudice requirement)