Background
On May 27, 2024, Illinois State Police Trooper Eric King stopped Johnny J. Lee for speeding and discovered his driver’s license was revoked. Lee initially faced misdemeanor citations for speeding and driving with a revoked license, but on July 25, 2024, the State upgraded the charge to a Class 4 felony for driving with a revoked license based on prior convictions.
On July 30, 2024, shortly after filing the felony charge, the State requested the traffic-stop video from the Illinois State Police via email. ISP provided a link to access the recording, but the State failed to download or preserve it. On October 20, 2024, ISP notified the State that the recording had been automatically deleted pursuant to ISP’s routine 90-day retention policy. The defendant’s attorney discovered the video’s loss at a December 3, 2024 pretrial hearing.
On January 7, 2025, Lee filed a motion for discovery sanctions, arguing that the State violated its obligations under Illinois Supreme Court Rules 412 and 415 by failing to preserve the only objective evidence of the traffic stop—a one-witness prosecution with no police report. Lee sought to bar Trooper King’s testimony. The circuit court granted the motion on February 27, 2025, and the State appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District affirmed the circuit court’s sanction, holding that the State violated its discovery obligations under Supreme Court Rule 412(f), which requires prosecutors to maintain a flow of information from investigative agencies sufficient to keep relevant evidence within the State’s possession or control. The court rejected the State’s argument that no discovery violation occurred because the defendant had not filed a written discovery request. The court distinguished between the duty to disclose discovery (which arises after a written request) and the independent duty to preserve evidence (which arises when the State acquires access to discoverable materials).
The court found that when the State affirmatively requested the recording and ISP provided it via an accessible link, the evidence became “readily available” and within the State’s “possession or control.” By allowing the link to expire without preserving the video, the State breached its duty. The court also held that section 14-3(h-15) of the Criminal Code applied: by requesting the recording for use in the felony prosecution, the State effectively “deemed” it evidence in a criminal proceeding, triggering a statutory obligation to preserve it until final disposition.
Regarding the severity of the sanction, the court affirmed the exclusion of Trooper King’s testimony, finding the circuit court properly considered and rejected lesser alternatives such as an adverse-inference instruction or limiting cross-examination. In a one-witness prosecution with no police report and no other objective evidence, the video was the only means to test the officer’s observations and credibility, making its loss fundamentally prejudicial to the defendant’s right to mount a defense.
Key Takeaways
- Prosecutors must preserve discoverable evidence once they obtain access to it, regardless of whether the defense has filed a written discovery request.
- When a prosecutor seeks evidence from an agency for use in a pending criminal case, that act itself “deems” the evidence relevant and triggers preservation duties under both discovery rules and state law.
- In a one-witness prosecution where the destroyed evidence was the only objective documentation of events, courts may impose the sanction of excluding the officer’s testimony if lesser remedies would not adequately mitigate prejudice.
- Routine administrative retention policies do not override a prosecutor’s obligation to preserve evidence identified as relevant to a criminal case.
Why It Matters
This decision tightens the prosecutor’s duty to preserve evidence and may complicate how law enforcement agencies manage retention policies. By holding that a prosecutor’s request for evidence triggers a preservation obligation, rather than requiring an affirmative defense demand, the court shifts the burden to the State to safeguard materials it deems relevant to prosecution. The ruling directly impacts cases in which video or audio evidence provides the only objective account—a common scenario with dashcam and bodycam footage.
The decision also clarifies that in felony cases where a witness’s testimony lacks corroboration and the destroyed evidence was central to the defense, excluding that testimony is an appropriate remedy for a discovery violation. This significantly strengthens defendants’ negotiating position and may deter prosecutorial carelessness in evidence handling. For defense attorneys, the ruling validates the argument that video evidence in traffic stops and similar encounters is not merely useful but essential to challenging police testimony—particularly when it is the only objective record available.