the attorneys would step up to the podium and identify yourself for the record the state bears the initial burden to show that disclosure of the location but on the public interest the court here calls and in camera hearing to determine if the statement that burton and the hearing was not transcribed this is work before you record however it but i was talking about the initial issue that he hasn't been through here not the big that we don't have a transcript the argument was made by the defendant that he should be allowed to know the location however subsequently in the motion for new trial the arguments regarding the right to cross examine or age fifteen and does require that the defense request a transcript of the row and with the defense counsel did not request that nor did any of the other part use and so we are conceding that there is a presumption the state met the initial burden determine if the public's interest in keeping the location private outweighs the defendant's need for the information minister and i think we can assume that the officer was in a heated location around the lot isn't that what the information under the confrontation clause also i think it's important to recognize that if we are worried about the safety of residents a defendant or drug dealer is likely to be able to figure out approximately where the officer was anyway so i decided to ask around the neighborhood of people in the building who let the police inside and he might be able to find approximately where i was anyway i'm the person who got the police and it's safety is a concern when the court conducted this hearing my first question see you is first ask where is this something that's being done routinely in this case it seems to be just done routinely all the parties seem to agree about and in camera hearing would be the next step yes but what i'm asking you is was there some sort of discovery motion that the defendant filed and at some point did the state say something like we're not disclosing the defense did file a discovery most that motion asking for this location and explaining right she needed it and the state never specifically said we're not disclosing although i believe they made those exact statements but the place all seemed to agree that in camera hearing would be the next step so it appears that this is some sort of routine procedure now that in possession with intent to deliver cases the parties are just assuming that the location will not be disclosed as a matter of course that seems to be what happened here and that's part of the problem with privileges that's being used in this routine manner where in certain cases like the instant case where this is a little bit from deal not a major drug deal big conspiracy going on with officers have a long investigation and yet they're failing to disclose  the state has compared this case to people versus reed where there was also only one officer who testified that he saw the transaction and the court there were ruled that the defendant was not prejudiced for failing to disclose however this case tippers from re because the clear on that new evidence calls into question the officers ability to observe but we do have such evidence in this case officer doherty testified that the buyers gave flu money and that he observed one way for the entire incident he never lost sight of him however clearly was arrested immediately and there was no money on him so this calls into question the officers ability to remember and whether or not accurately identified the seller was there any other here there are other problems other facts in this case of testing positive is identification so we would have to weigh those into pending how credible that other officer was but i could see a case where if the officer gave more information there were two surveillance officers then the court shall prepare a transcript seal it and have it for review i review there's two pieces that i also thought parties would be ready to case isn't it the state that is seeking to preclude the surveillance location that is true the statutory state seeking to keep out the location of the survey that's correct didn't the supreme court in those cases say that it was the burden of the movement to produce or to make certain that it in here were hearing be transcribed and provide a review yes that's true and so in this case it could be that the station was moving to seek the privilege they could be the ones who would be required to have requests to be in camera interest but at trial the defendant need only show that the location is relevant and helpful to the defense in order to overcome the privilege was it done here did the defendant or did the defense attorney show the location was a situation of there's more evidence there would be cumulative evidence of what took place and what transpired but we have a single witness we don't have any other evidence of what took place and in this case besides not having the money on him there  description when you have a situation such as this where the officers meet in the observations there is other officers in the area to make this arrest if there is a series or whatever transactions and that's what actually happened here the officer was observing once he saw three transactions you notified the other officers and they emerged and there was the immediate arrest why would there be a need for a description let's make sure then there were several more minutes and then the second and third transaction took place so under dorothy's timeline it sounds more like the entire incident was twenty five to thirty minutes so there is a concern about the dollar he is actually remembering the incident correctly and support the most significant case with the strongest case that you make some words the privilege should have been i mean the location rather should have been disclosed as a helpful case your honor a lot of the cases that find there's no prejudice officers one issue to keep them as they say where you see locations for a future or drug dealing future got surveillance officers with the state would have the opportunity of dismissing the charge if they didn't want to disclose that location when there is an extremely compelling reason it's not that we're dismissing the reason we're not saying it's not important but the defendant's right to confrontation is always going to outweigh that concern the case is discussing employment privilege to indicate that there might always be a risk to the they're not able to testify that the defendant was involved in the offense at all so if the kid says that the informants should be disclosed despite these compiling lists then certainly surveillance locations should also be disclosed because there's even the rest of the risk of harm  and clearing up the record was it your statement that it only relates to i thought you said the rule requires a ceiling or a transcript when there is a preview of documents or if you say just the rule that justice house just directed you to fix it begins with on the request of any person the court may permit any showing of oz or denial or regulation of disclosure upset showing to be made in camera now and then it says a record shall be made of such proceedings so here in this case there's actually no question that it was the state who was basically requesting that the serbians location nappy is closed would you agree with their rest would you also agree that it seems from the record that this is something that is of purity happening was asked whether any money was recovered and whether any money was inventory and to those questions the officers had to say no then during this fact finding the defense attorney argued th judge this officer said that he recovered the controlled substances but he never recovered any money but so weber during the state's argument at the close of all the evidence the state everyone talk about the fact there was no money recovered that subsequently that yes that finder found the defendant guilty and never commented at all regarding the issue that no money was recovered yet the other the judge never said well i believe the opposite even though there wasn't any money repub or maybe he'll always drop somewhere i don't know but in this case we have an officer who said he never lost sight of the defendant and he observed him exchange for us currency and in the same time he testified that no money was recovered no money was in jury so isn't there indeed a question of credibility in this particular case because you have transactions occurring like no money recognize this didn't it say that the rule is that there really should always be disclosure and that the exception is the there would be a case where there wouldn't be because this is a building where the owners ever teenie help the police we don't know really what the reason is and the rule this supreme court rule says that the the proceedings shelby transcribed sealed and preserved and in this case there's absolutely no question that had the movement the one that wanted to keep this location secret was the state stress it's about the power now it isn't those only those cases point out that it is the movement it's the movements were i don't agree with you that the cases turn whatever the judge said when they came out last met need to be sealed there was nothing nothing in there that would have to be sealed so your position is quack that the rule is only saying well you have to operate on the record what the of which they were sir all right now we're getting new rules for getting the in camera procedures let's get down to the other part of the seedings once the state asked for this privilege to yes then the defendants in this case and apparently it looks like it's happening all the time defendants are filing motions eliminated get coverage they would normally get and sell the defense attorney said to the judge well i know you you're not going let us get into this but the defendant argued and i can see now that this was relevant information because you have one officer the case hinges upon the officer now with that being said how can this the court do what did the trial judge stuber say that indicated in any way that he weighed the interest of the defendant against is their interest that we don't know what it was we don't know who  distance of vision and you know things of that nature and wa substances and those were part of the case in chief in that particular instance and your yes we had more than just one officer watching didn't we invest a spell in the first case where the court and appellate court the fourth district recognized story after the fact that there was this privilege and therefore in that case they concluded that the disclosure the nondisclosure was because this was at trial it had nothing to do with a preliminary hearing words or anything involving motions their natures explicitly says appears to me that what is in the trial courts is there's this automatic presumption that if there is a officer a surveillance officer serving transactions from a location some distance from the actual transactions that routinely the courts are everyone's assuming this ridge is exercise and the defendants are happy they're there they're filing motions in limine heat for disclosure so that indicates to me that this is no longer some kind of exception now the rule is that any time when officers are in you know location that they don't want to disclose everybody that law enforcement do need the purse which is helpful they were able to continue to address a pervasive problem in the city says because someone or some people will continue to risk their lives