California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Sergio M., In re, 13 Cal.App.4th 809, 16 Cal.Rptr.2d 701 (Cal. App. 1993):
The trial court held an in camera hearing and the minor was provided an opportunity to pose questions to be asked at this hearing. (See People v. Montgomery, supra, 205 Cal.App.3d at p. 1021, 252 Cal.Rptr. 779; People v. Walker (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 230, 236, 282 Cal.Rptr. 12.) At the conclusion of the in camera hearing, the minor's investigator was permitted to testify as to obstructions he observed within 100 yards of the minor's location. The court then found that there is a public interest in not disclosing the surveillance location, that to do so "would put persons in danger, would decrease the effectiveness of law enforcement in the future, would result in property being put in danger." He further found that "it is absolutely essential for this minor to have a cross-examination of this officer by finding out where he saw these observations." However, the court concluded: "under the circumstances
Page 704
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.