This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012).

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN COURT OF APPEALS

A13-2254

State of Minnesota,

Respondent,

vs.

Zakaria Hussein Ali,

Appellant.

Filed October 20, 2014

Affirmed

Stauber, Judge

Hennepin County District Court

File No. 27CR1242328

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and

Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Linda M. Freyer, Assistant County 

Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Jennifer Workman Jesness, 

Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Kirk, Presiding Judge; Hudson, Judge; and 

Stauber, Judge. 

U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N

STAUBER, Judge

On appeal from his conviction of prohibited person in possession of a firearm, 

appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion for 
2

either disclosure of the identity of the confidential reliable informant (CRI), or for an in 

camera review with the CRI to determine if disclosure was necessary. We affirm.

FACTS

In December 2012, appellant Zakaria Ali was charged with one count of 

prohibited person in possession of a firearm. The complaint alleged that police learned 

from a CRI that appellant and others “were planning a robbery in south Minneapolis for 

that day.” According to the complaint, police learned from the CRI that appellant and 

“two others would be picked up by a blue [Ford] Taurus in the area of 83rd and Halifax 

Avenue North in Brooklyn Park . . . and that they would be driven to an apartment near 

46th and Lyndale Avenue North . . . where the CRI said they would be picking up a gun.” 

The complaint also alleged that police set up surveillance and corroborated the 

information provided by the CRI. The complaint further alleged that after the group left 

the Lyndale Avenue North apartment, but before any robbery occurred, police observed 

appellant, who was the front-seat passenger of the Taurus, “bend down and then sit 

upright.” Police then “stopped the car on the entrance ramp to I-94 heading towards 

south Minneapolis” and, following a search of the car, discovered a 9mm handgun under 

the front passenger seat. 

Appellant moved to disclose the identity of the CRI, claiming that “[n]either the 

complaint nor the discovery . . . contain any information about the criteria the officers 

used to determine whether the CRI was in fact reliable, the criminal history of the CRI, or 

any past experience that the [police] ha[ve] had with this CRI.” Appellant argued that the 

identity of the informant must be disclosed (1) “to allow the defendant to prepare his 
3

defense and receive a fair trial” and (2) “to determine whether the police had reasonable 

suspicion justifying a stop of the vehicle.” Appellant argued alternatively that if the 

CRI’s identity were not disclosed, an in camera hearing should be held.

The district court concluded that (1) appellant did not meet his burden of 

establishing necessity or materiality regarding disclosure of the CRI’s identity; (2) police 

had an independent reasonable suspicion justifying a stop of appellant’s vehicle; and 

(3) there was no basis for an inquiry justifying an in camera hearing. The district court 

denied appellant’s motion to disclose the identity of the CRI or to hold an in camera 

hearing. A jury found appellant guilty of the charged offense, and the district court 

imposed the mandatory 60-months executed prison sentence. This appeal followed. 

D E C I S I O N

Appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion 

for either disclosure of the identity of the CRI or for an in camera review with the 

informant to determine if disclosure was necessary. The district court’s order regarding 

disclosure of the identity of a CRI is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. State v. 

Rambahal, 751 N.W.2d 84, 90 (Minn. 2008). 

A defendant can establish a basis for an in camera inquiry “by making a prima 

facie showing challenging the veracity of a search warrant, or by making a prima facie

showing that the informant may be a material witness at trial.” State v. Wessels, 424 

N.W.2d 572, 575 (Minn. App. 1988), review denied (Minn. July 6, 1988). But the 

supreme court has held that it is inappropriate to disclose the identity of a confidential 

informant or to hold an in camera inquiry only “to allow defense counsel to conduct a 
4

fishing expedition in the hope of discovering other possible misrepresentations on which 

to attack probable cause for the warrant.” State v. Moore, 438 N.W.2d 101, 106 (Minn. 

1989). “[C]ourts should not require in camera disclosure solely on the basis of 

speculation by the defendant that the informant’s testimony might be helpful. The 

defendant must explain precisely what testimony he thinks the informant will give and 

how this testimony will be relevant to a material issue of guilt or innocence.” Syrovatka 

v. State, 278 N.W.2d 558, 562 (Minn. 1979).

Here, as the district court found, appellant has “presented no evidence to establish 

the low standard needed for a basis for inquiry.” Instead, appellant surmised that the CRI 

was “likely” to be “someone who was involved in planning the robbery” and that 

disclosure of the CRI’s identity would demonstrate that the CRI did not gain “his 

information through rumors and conjecture.” But appellant provides no more than “mere 

speculation” that disclosure of the CRI’s identity would be helpful. Thus, the district 

court did not err by denying appellant’s request for disclosure without conducting an in 

camera review. And because appellant failed to make the lesser showing to support his 

argument that the district court should have held an in camera hearing, appellant cannot 

satisfy the “ultimate burden of proving that disclosure of the informant’s identity is 

necessary.” See Wessels, 424 N.W.2d at 574-75 (noting that defendant’s burden to 

establish the need for an in camera hearing “is somewhat lighter than the defendant’s 

ultimate burden of proving that disclosure of the informant’s identity is necessary”). 

Affirmed.