Illinois Official Reports 

Appellate Court

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

Appellate Court 

Caption

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. 

RONALD PALMER, Defendant-Appellant.

District & No. First District, Second Division

Docket No. 1-15-1253

Filed November 21, 2017

Decision Under 

Review

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, No. 13-CR-10795; the 

Hon. Erica L. Reddick, Judge, presiding.

Judgment Reversed and remanded.

Counsel on

Appeal

Michael J. Pelletier, Patricia Mysza, and Mario Kladis, of State 

Appellate Defender’s Office, of Chicago, for appellant.

Kimberly M. Foxx, State’s Attorney, of Chicago (Alan J. Spellberg, 

Joseph Alexander, and Michelle Corda, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of 

counsel), for the People.

Panel JUSTICE MASON delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

Presiding Justice Neville and Justice Hyman concurred in the 

judgment and opinion. 
- 2 - 

 OPINION 

¶ 1 Following a bench trial, defendant Ronald Palmer was convicted of possession of a 

controlled substance with intent to deliver and sentenced to six years in prison. On appeal, 

Palmer contends that his conviction should be reversed because the trial court erred in 

finding that the sole testifying police officer’s surveillance location was privileged. Palmer 

argues that the “surveillance location privilege” should be rejected as a matter of law; asserts 

that even if the privilege is valid, disclosure was merited here because the State’s case turned 

exclusively on the surveillance officer’s uncorroborated testimony; and contends that 

application of the privilege in his case was not harmless. In the alternative, Palmer contends 

that the mittimus should be corrected to reflect the accurate name and class of the offense of 

which he was convicted. 

¶ 2 Because we agree that the surveillance officer’s location should have been disclosed and 

that the lack of disclosure deprived Palmer of a fair trial, we reverse and remand for a new 

trial. 

¶ 3 Palmer’s conviction arose from the events of May 11, 2013. Following his arrest, Palmer 

was charged by information with one count of possession with intent to deliver between 1 

and 15 grams of heroin within 1000 feet of a church. Before trial, the State amended the 

charge to strike the element of being within 1000 feet of a church. Also before trial, a 

codefendant, Marc Hardiman, pled guilty to one count of possession of less than 15 grams of 

heroin in exchange for a sentence of 18 months in prison. 

¶ 4 At trial, Chicago police officer Paul Zogg, a 15-year veteran of the police force, testified 

that on May 11, 2013, he and his partner, Officer J. Rojas, were working as surveillance 

officers with a narcotics team in the area of 4037 West Jackson Boulevard. Zogg, who was 

familiar with the neighborhood from having conducted “dozens and dozens of surveillances” 

in the area over the past 11 years, explained that the building at the given address was an 

abandoned two-flat. About 11 p.m., Zogg saw Palmer on the porch and steps area of the 

two-flat. Zogg was approximately 40 yards from Palmer, using 10 power binoculars. 

Although it was dark outside, a streetlight immediately in front of the two-flat provided light. 

Palmer was wearing a gray jacket, gray hoodie, blue jeans, and light green shoes. 

¶ 5 Zogg testified that during his surveillance, three different men approached Palmer on 

separate occasions: a Hispanic man in a tan jacket, a black man in a black jacket, and a 

different black man in a black jacket. On each occasion, the customer gave United States 

currency to Palmer. Palmer would then place the money in his right jacket pocket, pull out a 

yellow strip of tape from his left jacket pocket, and tear off and tender to the customer items 

that had been attached to the strip. Zogg could not tell how much money Palmer received. 

¶ 6 After the third transaction, Zogg radioed the enforcement officers on his team, broke 

surveillance, and approached Palmer and his third customer, who was later determined to be 

codefendant Hardiman. Palmer and Hardiman looked in Zogg’s direction and fled into the 

two-flat. Just before Palmer entered the building, he dropped the yellow strip at the top of the 

steps. Zogg, who was about 10 yards behind Palmer at that point, picked up the yellow strip. 

He, Officer Rojas, and the enforcement officers then pursued Palmer inside the building. 

Rojas detained Palmer in the vestibule area and Zogg detained Hardiman in the rear of the 

building. Once Palmer was in custody, Rojas conducted a custodial search of his person in 

Zogg’s presence. Rojas recovered $20 in multiple denominations from Palmer’s right jacket 
- 3 - 

pocket. Zogg testified that the item he had recovered at the top of the steps consisted of two 

yellow strips holding 16 clear zip baggies, each with a “blue lady” design on them and each 

containing suspect heroin. Zogg brought the baggies to the police station, where they were 

inventoried, heat-sealed, and placed in a narcotics vault. 

¶ 7 On cross-examination, Zogg testified that his surveillance of Palmer lasted less than 10 

minutes, that he periodically radioed enforcement officers during the surveillance, and that 

less than five minutes passed between the time he broke surveillance and Palmer was 

detained. When asked how Palmer could have engaged in three narcotics transactions but 

only have $20 on him, Zogg explained that the recovered items were “nickel hit bags of 

heroin,” meaning they sold for $5 each. He also explained that the cash recovered from 

Palmer was not inventoried because, pursuant to department policy, Palmer was allowed to 

retain the money. 

¶ 8 Defense counsel then questioned Zogg about his surveillance location as follows: 

“Q. *** You stated that you had observed my client for, approximately, ten 

minutes; and that you were 20 to 40 feet away? 

 A. No, I was about 40 yards away, Counsel. 

Q. I’m sorry, 40 yards away?

 A. Correct. 

 Q. And you had to use binoculars? 

 A. I do, correct. 

 Q. And were you elevated or on foot? 

 A. Street level. 

 Q. Were you in a vehicle or outside of a vehicle? 

 A. Outside of a vehicle. 

 Q. Were you in plain clothes or uniform? 

 A. Uniform, with cover clothing over the top of it, that being a camouflage jacket. 

 Q. Were you working alone or with a partner? 

 A. Surveillance officer was Rojas. 

 Q. And you said you were on the street level, correct? 

A. That’s correct.”

¶ 9 Following this exchange, Zogg testified that he was not able to hear any conversation 

between Palmer and the men who approached him and could not see what denominations of 

bills the men gave Palmer. Zogg acknowledged that four people were inside the two-flat 

when the police entered, that the narcotics the police recovered were inventoried under four 

different numbers, and that only the set inventoried with the number ending “2929” was 

“assigned to” Palmer.

¶ 10 Zogg further testified on cross-examination that, during his surveillance, (i) he had a front 

view of Palmer, (ii) Officer Rojas was “in the rough vicinity” of his own surveillance 

location, and (iii) they were observing Palmer from the same direction. When defense 

counsel asked where exactly Zogg had been located, the prosecutor objected, arguing against 

disclosure due to officer safety. Defense counsel responded that concerns for officer safety 

did not apply, as Zogg had stated he was on street level, in uniform, and using a radio, which 

indicated this was not an undercover situation. The trial court had Zogg leave the room and 
- 4 - 

then addressed the attorneys regarding officer safety. The prosecutor answered that he 

believed the surveillance location “may be a spot that they still use,” and suggested that the 

court have an in camera conversation with the officer on that topic. Defense counsel 

responded that based on Zogg’s testimony that he was at street level and in uniform, the 

location could not be secret since “anybody in the neighborhood who walks by is going to 

see the cops.” 

¶ 11 The trial court decided to hold an “in camera review of the information” in the presence 

of the prosecutor and defense counsel. In chambers, the prosecutor questioned Zogg as 

follows: 

“Q. Officer, were you outside your—were you outside of your vehicle? 

A. That’s correct. 

 Q. And were you on the street? 

 A. No.

 Q. Or were you in a building? 

 A. Neither. 

 Q. Where were you? 

 A. At—there’s a vacant property there, with ample vegetation.

Q. I’m sorry, I didn’t hear the—

A. Vacant lot with a lot of vegetation.”

¶ 12 At this point, the trial court stopped the questioning and went off record. When the court 

came back on record, it stated, “Based on the representation that it was a spot that they use 

continually, and revealing it will compromise officer safety—.” Defense counsel interrupted, 

arguing that this was not a case involving the police using private property and thus 

compromising the safety of the property’s owner. Defense counsel asserted that the exact 

surveillance location was relevant to cross-examination because it had to do with the view 

Zogg had of Palmer and Zogg’s ability “to see what he says he saw” through the vegetation 

he was using to conceal himself. The prosecutor responded that Zogg had been clear that he 

was able to see over the vegetation with binoculars and had given “as many details as 

necessary.” The trial court made the following decision:

“All right. Considering the arguments of counsel, together with the elicited 

information as to the exact location, I do think you are able to elicit the issue you 

want to on cross-examination, without revealing the exact location. *** So, over the 

State’s—I will permit you to ask questions that will not reveal the exact location. It 

will not be revealed; but certainly, you may challenge, based on the in camera, 

off-the-record questioning process, facts that address the issues you want to raise on 

cross-examination, okay?”

¶ 13 In open court, the trial court reiterated that its ruling was that the surveillance location 

would not be revealed, but defense counsel would be permitted to inquire as to other 

circumstances surrounding the location. Defense counsel then elicited from Zogg that in his 

surveillance location, he was kneeling and surrounded by bushes, grass, and weeds; that his 

head was above the shrubs; and that he held binoculars to his face. When counsel asked Zogg 

whether his view of Palmer was compromised by the bushes and grass, Zogg answered that 

his view was unobstructed. In response to defense counsel’s question whether he used shrubs 

to conceal his location, Zogg gave the following answer: 
- 5 - 

“There’s multiple things that go into camouflage and concealment, that being 

shadows, background. So, if I am sitting in the shadows, I have a dark background. I 

can keep some of myself, the portion I need to, that being my eyes, try to cover as 

much of myself as I can, I will have that portion; and I will normally try to have a 

good background. I’ll try to blend in with it. And then, I’ll have shadows around me, 

which helps conceal someone that’s going past, from seeing me, because they are 

looking more in the darkness, whereas I’m looking into a more lighted area.”

¶ 14 Following Zogg’s testimony, the parties stipulated that a forensic chemist received 

inventory No. 12902929 in a heat-sealed condition, that the envelope contained 16 items of 

powder, and that she tested the contents of 7 of the 16 items. The 16 items weighed 2.7 

grams, the 7 tested items weighed 1.2 grams, and the tested items were positive for the 

presence of heroin. 

¶ 15 Palmer presented no evidence and the parties rested. 

¶ 16 In closing, defense counsel questioned Officer Zogg’s credibility. As relevant to this 

appeal, she argued that Zogg’s claim that he observed Palmer engage in narcotics 

transactions did not “make very much sense, because he is saying that he can see *** he 

can’t reveal his location, because he has to be hidden, but he can see everything perfectly, 

when it comes to my client.” Counsel asserted that her cross-examination of Zogg was 

limited because the surveillance location was not revealed, but nevertheless maintained that 

Zogg’s ability to observe Palmer was questionable because “there was vegetation in the 

way.” The prosecutor responded by arguing that defense counsel’s ability to cross-examine 

was not hampered or curtailed in any way and that Palmer’s guilt had been proved beyond a 

reasonable doubt. 

¶ 17 The trial court found Palmer guilty of possession of a controlled substance with intent to 

deliver. 

¶ 18 Defense counsel filed a motion for a new trial, arguing, inter alia, that Palmer did not 

receive a fair and impartial trial, and Palmer filed a pro se “motion for re-trial due to 

ineffective assistance of counsel.” The trial court conducted an inquiry into Palmer’s claim of 

ineffectiveness and found it lacked merit. The court also denied defense counsel’s motion for 

a new trial. The court later sentenced Palmer to six years in prison and Palmer timely 

appealed. 

¶ 19 Palmer’s first contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in applying the surveillance 

location privilege. He argues that the privilege should be rejected as a matter of law or, in the 

alternative, that the trial court should have required disclosure here because the State’s case 

turned exclusively on Zogg’s testimony. Palmer asserts that his constitutional right to 

effectively cross-examine Zogg was violated, that he was denied a fair trial, and that the error 

was not harmless. 

¶ 20 As an initial matter, we note the State’s argument that Palmer has forfeited this issue 

because he failed to raise it in his motion for a new trial. It is true that ordinarily, a defendant 

must both object at trial and include a claim in a posttrial motion in order to preserve it for 

appeal. People v. Enoch, 122 Ill. 2d 176, 186 (1988). However, an exception to forfeiture 

exists for constitutional issues that were not included in a posttrial motion, but were raised at 

trial and could be raised later in a postconviction petition. See People v. Cregan, 2014 IL 

113600, ¶ 16; People v. Flournoy, 2016 IL App (1st) 142356, ¶ 23. In such cases, “the 

interests in judicial economy favor addressing the issue on direct appeal rather than requiring 
- 6 - 

defendant to raise it in a separate postconviction petition.” Cregan, 2014 IL 113600, ¶ 18. 

Here, Palmer’s arguments regarding the surveillance location privilege implicate his 

constitutional right to confront witnesses against him. Flournoy, 2016 IL App (1st) 142356, 

¶ 23. Accordingly, we will review his claims. Id.

¶ 21 Palmer’s first argument is that the surveillance location privilege should be rejected 

entirely as a matter of law for three reasons: (1) though the creation of a privilege is 

presumptively a legislative task, the surveillance location privilege was created by this court 

rather than by the Illinois legislature; (2) the privilege has not been addressed by the Illinois 

Supreme Court; and (3) the privilege does not meet a test for recognizing evidentiary 

privileges that was set forth by the Illinois Supreme Court in People ex rel. Birkett v. City of 

Chicago, 184 Ill. 2d 521 (1998). 

¶ 22 We decline Palmer’s invitation to completely abandon the surveillance location privilege. 

This court has developed a consistent and long-standing body of law regarding the privilege. 

It was first recognized in Illinois in People v. Criss, 294 Ill. App. 3d 276 (1998), and evolved 

from the informant’s privilege, which is codified in the Illinois Compiled Statutes. See 735 

ILCS 5/8-802.3 (West 2012); Criss, 294 Ill. App. 3d at 280. Since Criss, the surveillance 

location privilege has been recognized and applied in numerous cases in our state. See, e.g., 

In re Manuel M., 2017 IL App (1st) 162381, ¶ 18; Flournoy, 2016 IL App (1st) 142356, ¶ 26; 

People v. Reed, 2013 IL App (1st) 113465, ¶ 18; People v. Britton, 2012 IL App (1st) 

102322, ¶ 26; People v. Price, 404 Ill. App. 3d 324, 330-31 (2010); People v. Stokes, 392 Ill. 

App. 3d 335, 340 (2009); People v. Bell, 373 Ill. App. 3d 811, 818 (2007); People v. Quinn, 

332 Ill. App. 3d 40, 43 (2002); People v. Knight, 323 Ill. App. 3d 1117, 1127-28 (2001). 

¶ 23 Moreover, Birkett and Criss were both decided in 1998. Despite the plethora of cases 

recognizing the qualified surveillance privilege that have been decided by our court over the 

past decades, our supreme court has not cast doubt on the continuing viability of this body of 

law. And as the surveillance location privilege derives from the legislatively enacted 

informant’s privilege and implicates the same policy concerns, we deem it ill-advised to 

eliminate it entirely. 

¶ 24 Palmer next challenges the state’s invocation of the privilege under the circumstances of 

this case, stressing that his conviction rested entirely on Zogg’s uncorroborated testimony.

¶ 25 Criminal defendants have a constitutional right to confront witnesses against them, which 

includes the right to cross-examination. See U.S. Const., amends. VI, XIV; Ill. Const. 1970, 

art. I, § 8; Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 54 (2004). Yet, the right to 

cross-examination is not absolute. Price, 404 Ill. App. 3d at 330. A trial court is afforded 

broad discretion to limit the scope of cross-examination, and its restriction of 

cross-examination will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion. Id.

¶ 26 As discussed above, Illinois courts recognize a qualified privilege regarding the 

disclosure of surveillance locations. See, e.g., Manuel M., 2017 IL App (1st) 162381, ¶ 18. 

Whether disclosure is required is determined on a case-by-case basis, with the trial court 

balancing the public interest in keeping the location secret against the defendant’s interest in 

preparing a defense and right to test the credibility of a witness by cross-examination. Id.; 

Flournoy, 2016 IL App (1st) 142356, ¶ 34. The more important a witness is to the State’s 

case, the more important the defendant’s right to cross-examination concerning the 

surveillance location becomes. Flournoy, 2016 IL App (1st) 142356, ¶ 34. If there is no 

question about a surveillance officer’s ability to observe or evidence of the crime in question 
- 7 - 

appears on a contemporaneous video recording, disclosure would not be required. Id. In 

contrast, if the prosecution’s case depends almost exclusively on one police officer’s 

testimony, disclosure must “ ‘almost always’ ” be required. Id. (quoting Knight, 323 Ill. App. 

3d at 1128). 

¶ 27 Where, as here, the State invokes the surveillance location privilege at trial, it bears the 

initial burden of proof in demonstrating that the privilege should apply. Manuel M., 2017 IL 

App (1st) 162381, ¶ 19. The State carries this burden by presenting evidence that the 

surveillance location was either (1) on private property with the permission of the owner or 

(2) in a useful location, the utility of which would be compromised by disclosure. Id. To

evaluate whether the privilege applies, the trial court should hold an in camera hearing, 

outside the presence of the defendant and defense counsel, during which the State’s witness 

must reveal the surveillance location and make a preliminary showing that disclosure of that 

location would harm the public interest. Flournoy, 2016 IL App (1st) 142356, ¶ 35; but see 

Manuel M., 2017 IL App (1st) 162381, ¶ 26 (holding that the in camera examination of the 

officer should be conducted outside the presence of the State and the defense, that it should 

be strictly limited to disclosure of the exact surveillance location, and that any testimony or 

argument addressing the public interest in nondisclosure should be made in open court). 

Then, the trial court should weigh the defendant’s need for the surveillance location against 

the public’s interest in nondisclosure. Flournoy, 2016 IL App (1st) 142356, ¶ 35. Factors to 

be considered in evaluating the public interest in nondisclosure include the crime charged, 

the possible defenses, and the potential significance of the privileged information. Id.

¶ 28 If the State satisfies its burden of proof at the in camera hearing, then the burden shifts to 

the defendant to overcome the privilege. Id. ¶ 36. The defendant’s burden at this point varies 

depending on the timing of the invocation of the privilege. Id. If the surveillance location 

privilege was invoked or challenged pretrial, the defendant may overcome it by making a 

strong showing that the disclosure of the surveillance location is material or necessary to the 

defense and that his need for the information outweighs the public’s interest in keeping the 

location secret. Id. In contrast, if the State first invokes the privilege at trial, as it did in the 

instant case, then the defendant need only show that the surveillance location is relevant and 

helpful to his defense, or is essential to the fair determination of the cause. Id.

¶ 29 Here, the State’s invocation of the privilege at trial triggered an in camera hearing. The 

portion of that hearing that was transcribed reveals that the trial court allowed the State to 

question Zogg and elicit information that his surveillance location was in a vacant property 

with “a lot of vegetation.” Transcription then stopped. When it resumed, the court indicated 

that Zogg had represented that the location was a spot the police used continually and that 

revealing it would compromise officer safety. Defense counsel argued that the exact 

surveillance location was necessary in order to cross-examine Zogg regarding his ability “to 

see what he says he saw” through the vegetation he was using to conceal himself. The trial 

court ruled that the surveillance location would not be revealed, stating to defense counsel, “I 

do think you are able to elicit the issue you want to on cross-examination, without revealing 

the exact location.” The court also stated that defense counsel would be “permitted to inquire 

as to other circumstances surrounding the location.” 

¶ 30 We find that, although the trial court was sensitive to Palmer’s need to ascertain Zogg’s 

exact surveillance location, it failed to take into account other factors such as (i) the lower 

burden Palmer was required to meet to obtain disclosure, (ii) Zogg’s status as the State’s only 
- 8 - 

live witness, and (iii) the fact that surveillance was conducted from a vacant lot, which does 

not implicate the safety of cooperating landowners. 

¶ 31 First, as noted, when the surveillance location privilege is invoked at trial, the defendant, 

in order to overcome the privilege, is only required to show that the exact location is relevant 

and helpful to his defense. Manuel M., 2017 IL App (1st) 162381, ¶ 19; Flournoy, 2016 IL 

App (1st) 142356, ¶ 36. Particularly since Zogg testified that his body was completely 

concealed by vegetation, but that he was still able to see Palmer’s actions, the disclosure of 

the area in the vacant lot where Zogg positioned himself would have enabled defense counsel 

to challenge that testimony more effectively. Thus, this information was relevant and helpful 

to Palmer’s defense.

¶ 32 Second, it has long been the position of this court that when the State’s case depends 

almost exclusively on one police officer’s testimony, disclosure must “almost always” be 

ordered. See, e.g., Manuel M., 2017 IL App (1st) 162381, ¶ 22; Flournoy, 2016 IL App (1st) 

142356, ¶ 34; Reed, 2013 IL App (1st) 113465, ¶ 18; Price, 404 Ill. App. 3d at 331; Stokes, 

392 Ill. App. 3d at 340; Knight, 323 Ill. App. 3d at 1128. Here, the State’s case against 

Palmer rested almost entirely upon Zogg’s testimony, the State’s sole live witness. Defense 

counsel’s trial strategy was to challenge Zogg’s credibility via cross-examination—the 

principal means to test a witness’s credibility. Manuel M., 2017 IL App (1st) 162381, ¶ 22. 

Because Zogg’s testimony provided the only evidence that Palmer had engaged in three 

hand-to-hand narcotics transactions in front of the two-flat, Zogg’s ability to see the porch 

and steps of that two-flat from his point of observation was highly relevant to the credibility 

of his testimony, and disclosure of the location would have been helpful to the defense. We 

agree with Palmer that asking a witness if his sight line was clear is pointless if the witness’s 

answer cannot then be tested by specific questions based on his exact location. By blocking 

disclosure of the surveillance location, the trial court seriously hampered Palmer’s ability to 

test the credibility of the only witness against him. 

¶ 33 Third and finally, the circumstances here, involving an officer concealing himself behind 

vegetation in a vacant lot, do not implicate the safety concerns of property owners who allow 

police to conduct surveillance from private property. See Criss, 294 Ill. App. 3d at 280-81. 

And while officer safety is also a concern underlying the surveillance location privilege, we 

perceive no greater threat to officer safety as a result of disclosure in this case given that 

anyone selling drugs in the vicinity of 4037 West Jackson Boulevard now knows that officers 

conceal themselves behind vegetation in vacant lots nearby. 

¶ 34 Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion when it applied the 

surveillance location privilege in this case. See Manuel M., 2017 IL App (1st) 162381, 

¶¶ 21-22 (where the State’s case rested entirely upon one officer’s testimony, the trial court 

abused its discretion in applying the surveillance location privilege and only permitting 

defense counsel to inquire into “ ‘distance, lighting, [and] everything else’ ”); Flournoy, 2016 

IL App (1st) 142356, ¶¶ 4, 49 (disclosure was warranted where the officer’s testimony 

concerning what he saw from his surveillance location was the linchpin of the State’s case, 

and the trial court’s allowance that defense could “cross as to the distance whether any 

possible obstructions, any visual aids” was insufficient); Price, 404 Ill. App. 3d at 333 (the 

trial court abused its discretion where it invoked the privilege without conducting a balancing 

inquiry and the defendant’s conviction rested solely on one officer’s testimony); Knight, 323 

Ill. App. 3d at 1121 (where the case turned almost exclusively on one officer’s 
- 9 - 

uncorroborated testimony, the trial court abused its discretion in allowing cross-examination 

regarding “ ‘his distance, the lighting, opportunity to observe, obstructions blocking his view, 

and things of that nature without requiring the officer to disclose the exact location of this 

surveillance’ ”); but see Bell, 373 Ill. App. 3d at 818-19 (finding no abuse of discretion 

where defense counsel cross-examined the officer extensively with respect to lighting 

conditions, any possible obstructions, the officer’s familiarity with the area, his use of 

binoculars, whether he was in uniform, and the distance of the nearest individual to the 

defendant); Quinn, 332 Ill. App. 3d at 44 (finding no abuse of discretion where defense 

counsel cross-examined the officer with respect to lighting conditions, any possible 

obstructions, and use of binoculars). 

¶ 35 The failure to disclose Zogg’s location—so that Palmer could test his claim that the 

vegetation that concealed Zogg’s presence in a vacant lot did not also impair his ability to 

observe Palmer’s conduct—denied Palmer a fair trial. Thus, we reverse Palmer’s conviction 

and remand for a new trial, during which the State must disclose Zogg’s surveillance 

location. We find no double jeopardy bar to retrial, as the evidence supports a guilty finding 

on the charged offense. See People v. Olivera, 164 Ill. 2d 382, 393 (1995). 

¶ 36 Given our disposition, we need not address Palmer’s contention regarding the accuracy of 

the mittimus. 

¶ 37 Reversed and remanded.