People v. Flournoy
67 N.E.3d 390
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Defendant Lucius Flournoy was convicted after a bench trial of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver based primarily on surveillance officer Brian Doherty’s testimony of observing three hand‑to‑hand transactions in a vacant lot.
- Officer Doherty testified he was about 20 feet away, in an elevated position (~two stories), had a clear line of sight and never lost sight of defendant; no contemporaneous video or other occurrence witnesses corroborated the transactions.
- Enforcement officers arrested Flournoy, recovered a small bag in his hand and additional bags from his waistband; no money was documented as recovered from defendant.
- Prior to trial defendant moved to compel disclosure of the officer’s exact surveillance location to test the officer’s ability to observe; the State asserted a qualified "surveillance location" privilege and the trial court held an off‑the‑record in‑camera hearing, then refused to disclose the location.
- The trial court permitted cross‑examination on distance/obstructions but declined to disclose more; defendant was convicted and sentenced to nine years.
- On appeal the First District held the trial court abused its discretion by applying the surveillance‑location privilege without a proper on‑record in‑camera transcript and without balancing defendant’s need against the public interest; reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly denied disclosure of the surveillance location under the qualified surveillance‑location privilege | State: privilege protects law enforcement safety/operations; court found preliminary showing of harm and allowed limited cross | Flournoy: disclosure necessary to test officer’s vantage and confront witness; privilege infringes ability to impeach when case rests on one officer | Trial court abused discretion: State must make record at in‑camera hearing and court must balance public interest vs defendant’s need; here need was high and neither transcript nor balancing occurred — reversal and remand |
| Whether the in‑camera proceeding must be transcribed and preserved for appeal | State implicitly: not required; relied on trial court’s in‑camera findings | Flournoy: transcript required so appellate court can review whether State met burden | Held: when State invokes privilege, trial court must ensure the in‑camera hearing is transcribed and sealed for appellate review |
| Burden allocation in surveillance‑location claims at in‑camera hearing | State: privileged information can be withheld after preliminary showing | Flournoy: State bears initial burden to show nondisclosure would harm public interest | Held: State bears initial burden at in‑camera hearing to show location is private or utility would be compromised; if met, burden shifts to defendant to show relevance/necessity |
| Whether disclosure is required where case turns almost exclusively on one officer’s testimony | State: privilege can still apply; cross‑examination on distance/obstructions sufficient | Flournoy: where case depends on single officer and observation is impeachable, disclosure is almost always required | Held: where State’s case depends nearly entirely on one surveillance officer and the officer’s ability to observe is seriously in question, disclosure must almost always be ordered; here nondisclosure prejudiced defendant |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Criss, 294 Ill. App. 3d 276 (1998) (recognized qualified surveillance‑location privilege and required case‑by‑case analysis)
- People v. Knight, 323 Ill. App. 3d 1117 (2001) (held disclosure generally required at trial when officer’s testimony is uncorroborated and ability to observe is questioned)
- People v. Price, 404 Ill. App. 3d 324 (2010) (trial court abused discretion by sustaining privilege without balancing defendant’s need)
- People v. Coates, 109 Ill. 2d 431 (1985) (discussed in‑camera procedure and appellate review where party sought disclosure)
- People v. Deleon, 227 Ill. 2d 322 (2008) (party seeking in‑camera inspection must request record preservation under Rule 415(f) to enable appellate review)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause protects right to cross‑examination of witnesses against defendant)