Opinion ID: 2293285
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Surveillance Location Privilege

Text: The State asserts, and Church does not challenge, that there exists a surveillance location privilege that permits non-disclosure of a police officer's watch post when certain policy considerations favor keeping the location a secret when weighed against a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him. Both point to the decision of the Court of Special Appeals in Johnson v. State , which recognizes the privilege. As we have never addressed the issue of a surveillance location privilege, we shall review the rationale of courts that have recognized the privilege. Ultimately, as explained in the next subsection, entitled Nature of Privilege, we embrace the privilege for largely the same reasons advanced by the Court of Special Appeals in Johnson. In the subsection that follows, entitled State's Burden, we address the parties' dispute about whether there was sufficient evidence at the hearing below to justify application of the privilege. Church argues that where the State's only basis for non-disclosure was that the officer had told the State that he had an unobstructed view, it was error for the trial court to conclude that the State did not have to divulge the covert location. The State counters that Church has failed to proffer what else he would have asked Officer Kintop had the exact location of the covert surveillance been disclosed and that Church fail[ed] to proffer exactly how he was prejudiced in this case[.] Thus the parties' contentions boil down to the question of who has the burden to establish whether the privilege is applicable. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the State has a burden to show that application of the privilege will protect a legitimate State interest in each case, and that it failed to make the necessary showing in this case.