Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

People v. Sanders

Court of Appeals of Illinois, First District, Fourth Division

June 20, 2019

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MAURICE SANDERS, Defendant-Appellant.

          Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County. No. 15 CR 9079 The Honorable Thaddeus L. Wilson, Judge, presiding.

          GORDON JUSTICE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Presiding Justice McBride and Justice Reyes concurred in the judgment and opinion.

          OPINION

          GORDON JUSTICE.

         ¶ 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.

         ¶ 3 BACKGROUND

         ¶ 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 controlled substance.

         ¶ 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:

         "THE COURT: All right. The Court conducted an in-camera [sic] examination of the officer-one second.

         Everyone must be seated.

         All 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.

         ASSISTANT PUBLIC DEFENDER: Thank you, Judge.

         THE 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."

         The 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 money.

         ¶ 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.