Opinion ID: 2373395
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Location of the Observation Post

Text: In the District of Columbia it is well established that the government has a qualified privilege to withhold the exact location of an observation post. Thompson v. United States, 472 A.2d 899, 900 (D.C.1984); see Jenkins v. United States, 541 A.2d 1269, 1272 (D.C.1988); Hicks v. United States, 431 A.2d 18, 19 (D.C.1981); United States v. Harley, 221 U.S.App.D.C. 69, 71, 682 F.2d 1018, 1020 (1982). That privilege, however, is not absolute. A defendant can force the government to divulge the exact location of an observation post upon a sufficient showing of need. Our recent Anderson opinion described that showing: Under our precedents, the determination whether disclosure of a concealed observation post shall be required proceeds in two stages. First, the defendant must make a threshold showing of need for the information; he must establish that he needs the evidence to conduct his defense and that there are no alternative means of getting at the same point. ... The defendant's burden in making his initial showing of need is ... significantly more modest than his second-stage burden of establishing that, in spite of the possible peril to officers and civilians and the potential curtailment of a legitimate means of law enforcement arising in the particular case, disclosure should nevertheless be required. Anderson v. United States, supra, 607 A.2d at 496 (citations omitted). We rejected in Anderson the notion that a defendant could make the requisite showing of need simply by showing that there was some `vantage point in the relevant area that would not permit a clear view of [his] activities.' Id. (citations omitted). The standard we set forth in Anderson calls for more: We ... hold that the defendant is obliged to show not only that there are locations in the area from which the view is impaired or obstructed, but also that there is some reason to believe that the officer was making his observations from such a location. Without some reason so to believe, the existence of obstructed locations is logically irrelevant. Id. at 497. Thus Anderson requires a defendant seeking to compel disclosure of the location of a surveillance post to show not only that some possible observation posts were obstructed, but also that there is reason to believe that the observing officer was actually situated in such a place. Appellant Carter did make an effort to show that Officer Nitz had conducted his surveillance from an observation post from which the view was obstructed. Defense counsel sent an investigator to the scene at least twice. The investigator and counsel came up with a theory of where the observation post was located, and counsel argued that the view from that spot was obstructed. Despite this detective work, the trial court did not accept counsel's hypothesis that Officer Nitz had seen the drug transaction from an impaired vantage point; on the contrary, the court characterized counsel's proffer as to the location of the post as very speculative. The court credited instead Officer Nitz's consistent and unambiguous testimony that he could see the transaction clearly and without obstruction. Carter asserts that requiring a defendant to produce evidence to discredit the officer's assertion about his observations creates a heavy burden. But that heavy burden is exactly what we intended in Anderson: If ... the officer unambiguously testifies that he was not in any of the impaired locations, and if his testimony to that effect is credited by the court, then it will ordinarily be difficult if not impossible, absent other indicia of unreliability, for the accused to sustain his threshold burden, for there will be no reason for the court to believe that the officer's view was obstructed. 607 A.2d at 497 (footnote omitted). Thus Anderson anticipated the situation presented in the case at bar. Officer Nitz testified that he could see the drug transaction clearly, and Carter did not present any evidence which cast doubt on that testimony. Since the defense failed to demonstrate that the location from which Officer Nitz watched Carter's dealings with Messrs. Day and Dorsey had an obstructed view, we hold that Carter's showing did not meet the Anderson standard. [5] Carter also argues that the trial court erred by not conducting an in camera hearing about the location of the surveillance post. [6] We have recognized that the trial court has discretion to conduct an in camera hearing in the course of deciding whether to require disclosure. See Thompson v. United States, supra, 472 A.2d at 901 (trial court was well within its discretion in refusing to entertain defense counsel's request for an in camera hearing); Hicks v. United States, supra, 431 A.2d at 22 n. 2. The Supreme Court, in another context, has said that a trial court should require a showing of a factual basis adequate to support a good faith belief by a reasonable person ... that in camera review of the materials may reveal evidence to establish the claim.... United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 572, 109 S.Ct. 2619, 2631, 105 L.Ed.2d 469 (1989) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). We apply this principle here and hold that the trial court should require a showing of a factual basis adequate to support the request for an in camera hearing. The trial court in this case credited Officer Nitz's testimony that his view of the relevant transaction from the observation post was not obstructed, and the defense did not rebut or contradict that testimony with any other evidence. We therefore conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to hold an in camera hearing. We note nevertheless that, while not compelled, an in camera inquiry may be very useful in reconciling the defendant's need for disclosure with the government's interest in maintaining the confidentiality of its observation posts. In camera review averts the dangers of disclosure which we recognized in Anderson, namely, that such disclosure would preclude further use of the observation post by the police and might subject the owner of the building where the post is located to harassment or retaliation. Anderson, supra, 607 A.2d at 495-496. Information disclosed in camera can often aid the court in its assessment of the defendant's claim of need for disclosure. We think in camera review is a useful and relatively risk-free tool which should be used liberally by courts in situations such as the one presented here. Our refusal to require in camera review in the instant case reflects a respect for the discretion of trial courts, not a disrespect for the utility of such review.