People v. Palmer, 2017 IL App (1st) 151253

Defendant Ronald Palmer was convicted after a bench trial of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver based primarily on eyewitness testimony of a single surveillance officer, Officer Paul Zogg.
Zogg testified he observed three hand-to-hand transactions from about 40 yards away at night using 10x binoculars and that Palmer dropped a yellow strip with 16 baggies of heroin at the top of the steps.
On cross-examination Zogg said he was on street level, in uniform, and concealed behind vegetation in a vacant lot; defense sought the exact surveillance location to test his ability to observe.
The State invoked the qualified "surveillance location" privilege and the court conducted an in camera hearing; the court declined to disclose the exact location but allowed limited questioning about surrounding circumstances.
Trial court found Palmer guilty; on appeal the court held that nondisclosure of the surveillance location was an abuse of discretion because (1) disclosure was necessary to test the sole witness’s credibility, (2) the burden to overcome the privilege was low where the privilege was asserted at trial, and (3) the location (a vacant lot) did not implicate private-owner safety concerns.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the surveillance-location privilege should be abandoned	State argued the privilege is recognized and protects officer safety and ongoing surveillance utility	Palmer argued the privilege is invalid and should be rejected as a matter of law	Court declined to abolish the privilege and upheld its qualified viability
Whether the State met its burden to invoke the privilege at trial	State contended in camera showing (vacant lot with vegetation; spot used continually) justified nondisclosure	Palmer argued the State failed to justify secrecy and that exact location was needed to test the witness	Court found State’s showing insufficient under circumstances and ruled privilege was misapplied
Whether nondisclosure violated defendant’s confrontation/cross-examination rights	State argued defense could probe distance, lighting, obstructions without exact location	Palmer argued inability to test exact sightline undermined cross-examination and fairness	Court held nondisclosure deprived Palmer of a fair trial because the case turned on the uncorroborated testimony of a single officer
Remedy: retrial barred by double jeopardy?	State argued retrial permissible because evidence supported conviction	Palmer argued for dismissal or other relief	Court ordered reversal and remand for new trial, holding retrial not barred

People v. Criss, 294 Ill. App. 3d 276 (Ill. App. 1998) (recognizing surveillance-location privilege derived from informant privilege)
People v. Knight, 323 Ill. App. 3d 1117 (Ill. App. 2001) (privilege review and rule that disclosure is often required where case rests on one officer’s testimony)
People v. Price, 404 Ill. App. 3d 324 (Ill. App. 2010) (abuse of discretion where privilege invoked without proper balancing and lone-officer testimony formed basis of conviction)
People v. Birkett, 184 Ill. 2d 521 (Ill. 1998) (test for recognizing evidentiary privileges)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause guarantees right to cross-examination)
People v. Enoch, 122 Ill. 2d 176 (Ill. 1988) (preservation rules on objections and posttrial motions)
People v. Olivera, 164 Ill. 2d 382 (Ill. 1995) (double jeopardy analysis in retrial context)