Court of Appeals of Illinois, First District, Fourth Division
from the Circuit Court of Cook County. No. 15 CR 9079 The
Honorable Thaddeus L. Wilson, Judge, presiding.
JUSTICE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
Presiding Justice McBride and Justice Reyes concurred in the
judgment and opinion.
1 After a bench trial, defendant Maurice Sanders was
convicted of possession of a controlled substance, namely,
heroin, and sentenced to five years with the Illinois
Department of Corrections (IDOC).
2 On this appeal, defendant claims that the trial court erred
in denying his pretrial motion for disclosure of the exact
surveillance location of the officer who observed him during
the offense. Defendant also challenges the imposition of
various fines and fees. For the following reasons, we do not
find persuasive his arguments regarding the surveillance
location and, thus, affirm his conviction. However, with
respect to the fines and fees, we remand to the circuit court
for further proceedings consistent with the newly revised
Illinois Supreme Court Rule 472(e) (eff. May 17, 2019), which
we discuss further below.
4 Defendant was charged by information with a single count of
possession of one gram or more of heroin with intent to
deliver. After a bench trial, the trial court found him
guilty of the lesser included offense of possession of a
5 Prior to trial, defendant moved for disclosure of the
surveillance location of police officer Alan Rogers, who had
observed defendant during the offense and who was the sole
witness to testify at defendant's bench trial.
6 In response to the motion, the trial court conducted an
in camera examination of Officer Rogers. The only
individuals present during the examination were the trial
judge, the court reporter and Officer Rogers. The transcript,
which was sealed, is a part of the appellate record.
7 After the in camera examination, the trial court
stated on the record:
COURT: All right. The Court conducted an in-camera
[sic] examination of the officer-one second.
must be seated.
right. And given the testimony of the Officer during that
examination, and in the interest of public safety, and the
Officer's ability with respect to that location, the
Court has determined that disclosing that location would not
be appropriate; and therefore, the Motion to Disclose
Surveillance Location is denied.
PUBLIC DEFENDER: Thank you, Judge.
COURT: However, the transcript of the in-camera
[sic] examination of the Officer, will be sealed,
and made a part of the record, and shall not be opened or
released without Order of Court."
above record shows that defense counsel was present but did
not object to the trial court's issuing its decision at
this time and did not seek further argument in addition to
defendant's written motion.
8 At trial, Officer Rogers testified that he had been a
police officer for 15 years. On May 14, 2015, he and his
fellow officers began a narcotics investigation on the 1000
block of North Lawndale Avenue in Chicago, in which he was
the surveillance officer. At 11:10 a.m., he observed
defendant enter a nearby vacant lot, bend down by a pile of
sticks and brush, and remove a piece of yellow and red paper
from the pile. Officer Rogers next observed defendant remove
a gold item from the paper and walk toward a woman standing
on the sidewalk. Defendant and the woman spoke briefly, and
defendant handed her the gold item in exchange for paper
9 Officer Rogers testified that, during the next five
minutes, he observed defendant walking around, near the lot.
Defendant was then approached by a man on a bicycle. After
speaking with this man briefly, defendant returned to the
vacant lot to retrieve a piece of yellow and red paper from
the pile. Defendant removed a gold item from the paper and
handed it to the man in exchange for paper money.
10 Officer Rogers testified that, based on his training and
his 15 years of experience, he believed these exchanges
"to be street level hand-to-hand narcotics
transactions." During his surveillance, he kept in
constant contact with the other officers through their police
radios, "giving them a description of the hand-to-hands
after they had occurred" and a description of defendant
and his location. After Officer Rogers had radioed the other
officers, he observed them approach and detain defendant.
Rogers then left his surveillance location and proceeded to
the vacant lot. At the lot, he recovered a piece of red and
yellow cardboard with a strip of gold tape that
"contained six tinfoil packets of suspect heroin."
Rogers also confirmed that the person who the ...