the court now calls case one one seven nine one one people or the state of on our versus terrelle chambers are you ready to proceed r recognize the danger of a police officer who could simply fabricate the existence of a confidential informant provide false information to the issuing job who would not have any opportunity to contest or challenge or verif the determination must be that of the officer in this case however not only did the officer appear before the issue and judge he brought with him is you know confidential informant that informant not only appear before the defeat the whole nature of the franks here because again if the purpose of the franks here is to ensure that the trial judge has the opportunity to test the  is fifteen one ten sherry street was really fifteen for ten surely it was available for us and so therefore the judge at that point exercises fresh in found that because the john doe informant was there in the judge had the opportunity to the judge or we would definitely submit before this court but worse yet it was correct it is based upon the meaning of frank's you understand of the rational phrase it's based on case law here in illinois before he and in particular the appellate decision people first philips it's preventing police misconduct and to some degree although it's maybe not discussed in these cases also some concern for a confidential informant to protect the confidentiality of the informant in this case we have an affidavit from  informant who apparently does not at this point is not asking the court to to keep him in the shadows he wants to come forward so that problem is it that that issue that is not in in this affidavit and solely his i shout because it's the defendant's burden to make a substantial trying to make that demonstration if his own sworn testimony his own sworn affidavits are flatly indirectly inconsistent with one another it cannot be warrants to obtain free judicial approval before going and searching so that there is a benefit to doing so and that the courts through the process should do everything in to incentiv would do everything for him to undermine the point of the franks instead it would tell police officers they're better off not bringing their informant before the judge letting them vow to verify for and let the thing stand  clearly is now we want we as prosecutors the people the state of illinois all benefit with more information being presented to the issue judge the last and that's where the flaw in the appellate court ruling in this case is they fail to recognize that the narrow limited circumstances you get pierced in for those reasons that we asked this court to reverse the appellate court ruling in this case to reinstate the condition into a hole where just by itself in determining whether a defendant is entitled to a friend's hearing what the state is advocating is a bright line rule that would sanction police separation of perjury without even so much of a hearing on the matter simply because the citizen inform plays the nature of the allegation made here by the op an actual informant himself this is a how he needs set of circumstances first of all this court should reject the state's eleventh hour claim in its  just it's disingenuous at best to now claim that coping was not a top national informant and even if there was a legitimate question as to whether coupled with the confidential informant is just as tyson recognize that this  informants showed up and did what he was coerced to do like he was here at the x party hearing it's pretty of course the next party hearing before the issue he charged but it's not always sufficient at that point to get out or discourage the type of government misconduct that's a less here we submit that this is a highly unique set of circumstances it's of that there is no concern about any type of expansion or any type of floodgates being open what frank specifically how is that is that what's required for preliminary showing i think this is important this is also to the center of you is a problem we're shown that it was a suitable preliminary proffer a false prophet in other words suitable allegations of falsity frank says that there must be allegations of deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth a company made by an that what frank says is required for political hearing it speaks directly to allegations it speaks directly to proffers it speaks directly to material falsities that deserve to see the light of day had a full blown hearing regardless they were pulled over there was there was a mass a of gloves and some weapons and that they had six tends to support open story i think that and the judge in actually lands to his credibility it's a statement against his own interest i'm so as far as the conflicts that you address i mean that's just another reason why he should be held but what but what matters most is the nature of this allegation specific in this understandably hoping was intimidated by such flagrant police misconduct so it's easy to understand why he would toe the line him up and implicate chambers rather than have a case put on him by this dirty cop poster child for what franks was designed to guard against are the presence of the c of the confidential informant should be a factor it cannot be this dispositive he won't end up as the state advocates other there's other questions raised by this one affidavit as well and i cited them in the brief among them are the letters from the harvey markham police department certifying the night existence of any records of citizen complaints about the parts i  questions were raised to allow chambers a hearing to challenge the brashly of the factual statements presented in the ward and mr gonzales yes i want to go back to a question i asked earlier by chief justice kerman about how how do we narrowly tailor our decision if we're going to go your way that would not open this up to frank's hearings being treated like motions to suppress the she asked  is expanding the rule and frogs expanding the exception in phrase i don't understand how that's expanding given the nature of the allegation here  again frank speaks directly to police misconduct to allegations so proffers to specifics allegations of police misconduct being allowed to see the light of day the officer as you call me at this point because i think he's serving time as we speak right so that is into the mix and so there are some unique circumstances in this case but i'm saying we have to be sensitive to the fact again franks spoke to a number of those and a part of which was ok well what is the ramifications if we allow impeachment on a warning affidavit under this circumstance and that circumstance ok but what it what it basically came down to say is that what that with material allegations something that's tangible something that's supported by affidavit something that's supported with specifics that involves material allegations of of police either misconduct or falsity on the part of the government which is the allegation we have here those are the types of allegations that are entitled so you see the light of day in other words those are questions that was never before the initially judge in the first place and those are the types of and that is the very reason why it's these allegations that come to loaded allegations that frank says you don't just dismiss i mean those specific heat it's an affidavit from the informant himself so i don't know that this is prototypical case if a friend's hearing isn't granted in this case when would it ever be so i guess i don't know i don't see this i totally disagree that this expands anything i think it s it goes right to the heart of what frank speaks to as to the question a standard review i would like if i if i'm allowed so i see my times and we can hear i just w mention that because this is opinions based inquiry it should be reviewed to noble i made reference earlier about how what what what frank says as to the al the fact that only allegations need to be raised that proper is need to be made so this is the lower court is a no better position than this or to look at a set of facts or to look at that about occasions and determine whether or not they meet that preliminary showing them or i think what's notable in this case is that it is that the court below rely pretty much exclusively almost on i'm primarily at least on one  better position and more uniquely qualified to make the decision as to how as to what course that actually says excuse me and whether or not it applies in this particular case it in the circuit court just basically to the bright line our argument here is that other thing course the out of there's no other case that makes this kind of bright line and furthermore this case does it this case is even a close because that case was clearly that race is nothing more than a mere denial it had nothing to do with police coercion nothing to do with the type of circumstances we have here ok so because this involves two separate questions the question of whether he's entitled to a hearing in the first place whether he not he met that low threshold or collimator herring that is something that this court could he is just as equipped to look at the set of allegations look at the affidavit look at the evidence that was presented at many more details i cited the briefs and look to say well you know what there's enough questions raised here that he's a title to harry it's a separate question and that whether or not he will ultimately getting that to the question as to whether or not this would be expanding frames in creating a much broader war if it is simply a pleading inquiry akin to a post commission proceeding we will see an expansion and explosion of challenges the search warrants as we have seen is this court has seen over the last thirty years regarding the pope's condition here in elevations will be accepted is true in hearings will be held and that will certainly have the basis of undermining and a request for getting a surface which again is contrary to public policy of this court and the u s supreme court but the key to preserving the key to preventing that from happening is actually found in we've sent a in this court's decision and that's the abus discretion standard the best manner of preserving the deference given to the trial judge is the difference getting to the issue judge is the abuse of discretion standard because it recognizes that the trial judge is there is capable of taking in all the factual allegations all the factual considerations in making the determination better than any appellate panel better than this work that you can do and that's why the sense they stressed the the truly subjective nature of the councils as in this courts do which is simply look at the pleadings ignore in consistencies in granted here but i also wanted to take this court step by step through the trial court's exercise of discretion in this case to show how it was very clearly a proper exercise their discretion because as i said defendant file three separate motions the first motion offered certain affidavits an alibi affidavit as an alibi him and other points and challenging the the sworn video tape recorded statements by defendant's cousin where he claimed that the arrest that occurred with floods of the search warrant happened and he had obtained the marijuana from a drug buy earlier that  robbery it was be on the statute of limitations meaning that there was no jeopardy of a risk or it was an allegation that he was now offering in a third motion for a phrase hearing after the previous one said tonight which was inc has detailed to it there's some corroboration there has been offered but the court can say despite all that i without having a cross examination i don't believe you find is that is that how  which recognize that there were ten separate recognized actors by the courts of illinois as to what and by the federal courts as to what could factor into an appropriate determination of a subpoena for one mary show and the significance of those ten  considered should the court have been able to take into consideration the allegations against the police officer well notably none of those allegations were made of the time of the phrase here all those allegations come forward in the process of primarily in the court and so again the trial of what he's saying but the question is really whether or not the trial judge the moment that he was faced with those franks motions will probably and is again i stress if you go through the three separate motions we don't see is a judge acting precipitously you don't see a