Can an Illinois state's attorney share LEADS database information with a defense attorney to comply with Brady disclosure?

Plain-English summary

Kane County State's Attorney Jamie Mosser asked whether her office can share Law Enforcement Agencies Data System (LEADS) information with a defense attorney when that information tends to clear the defendant or chip away at a witness's credibility. The Illinois State Police had told her office that LEADS administrative rules prohibit dissemination to anyone who is not a "criminal justice agency," and defense lawyers and public defenders are not. That created an apparent conflict with the Brady v. Maryland duty to disclose favorable evidence and with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 412.

Attorney General Kwame Raoul's answer is yes, with important limits. A prosecutor can hand over LEADS-derived information to defense counsel when:

• the material tends to negate guilt or reduce punishment under Brady and Rule 412(c), or includes prior convictions usable for impeaching a State's witness under Rule 412(a)(vi); and
• the disclosure is narrowly scoped to the favorable, material content rather than dumping the whole LEADS printout into discovery.

The opinion endorses a practical workflow: extract Brady material, write it down in a separate document, redact or excise non-discoverable LEADS data, and tender that focused product to the defense. Where any doubt remains about a particular item, ask the trial judge to review it in camera and decide what should be disclosed.

The opinion is significant because it is the first formal statewide guidance reconciling the LEADS administrative rules with the prosecutor's constitutional disclosure duty. Without it, Illinois prosecutors faced a real bind: they could comply with the LEADS rules and risk a Brady violation, or comply with Brady and risk losing LEADS access. The opinion gives them a path that does both.

What this means for you

If you're an Illinois state's attorney or assistant state's attorney

The opinion is your authority to disclose LEADS-derived favorable evidence. In practice:

1. When you pull a LEADS report on a witness or suspect, treat it like any other source of potentially favorable information. Read it for Brady and Giglio material (impeachment, prior convictions, pending charges, juvenile adjudications, probation status).
2. If you find favorable material, do not simply photocopy the LEADS printout and hand it over. Instead, extract the discoverable content, summarize or quote it in a separate document, and disclose that. The opinion specifically says the office may "fulfill this discovery obligation by obtaining any discoverable LEADS information, reducing that information to writing, and then tendering that information to the defense without tendering the LEADS printout wholesale."
3. Keep a record of what you found and what you disclosed. The Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission has indicated it follows the ABA's reading of Rule 3.8(d), a broader ethical duty than Brady itself.
4. If you are not sure whether something is discoverable, ask the trial court to review it in camera under People v. Bean and Pennsylvania v. Ritchie. The trial court can balance the LEADS confidentiality concerns against the defendant's due-process rights.
5. For information that originates in the federal Interstate Identification Index or NCIC (rather than state-only data), be especially cautious. 28 C.F.R. § 20.33 has tighter rules and the FBI has historically required the prosecutor to act through a court order or extract favorable content rather than disseminate the FBI-sourced printout.

If you're a criminal defense attorney or public defender

You cannot directly query LEADS. But under this opinion, you can request from the State's Attorney's office any LEADS-derived material that bears on:

• prior convictions of State witnesses (Rule 412(a)(vi));
• pending criminal charges, juvenile adjudications, or probation status of State witnesses, where impeaching (Rule 412(c) plus Williams, Sharrod, Preatty);
• criminal history of any third party that connects to an alternate-suspect theory (People v. Plummer, People v. Olinger).

When the State produces LEADS information, you may receive a written summary or extract rather than the original printout. That is permitted under this opinion. If you suspect the State has not extracted everything Brady requires, you can move for in camera review by the trial court. You can also ask the court to enter a discovery order specifically directing the State to query LEADS for impeachment material on its key witnesses.

If you're a sworn officer or LEADS user

Nothing in this opinion changes your direct LEADS access rules. The opinion is about what prosecutors do with information they obtain through proper LEADS channels and then realize includes Brady material. Continue to comply with 20 Ill. Adm. Code Part 1240 on direct queries, terminal access, and audit requirements. The disclosure decision is the prosecutor's, not yours.

If you're a trial judge

The opinion gives you a clear in camera review role. When the State and defense disagree about whether particular LEADS-sourced information must be disclosed (or about the form of disclosure), you can review the LEADS report or extract privately and decide. Illinois Supreme Court Rule 415(e) anticipates this exact mixed-content scenario, and Rule 415(d) allows protective orders that adjust the time, place, recipient, or use of disclosures.

If you administer or audit LEADS access

The opinion does not authorize broad release of LEADS reports to defense attorneys. It authorizes prosecutors to extract Brady material from LEADS responses and disclose it in a focused, written form. Audit programs should not flag a prosecutor's narrow Brady disclosure as a 20 Ill. Adm. Code § 1240.80(d) violation, because the recipient is an attorney "legally authorized to have access" to that subset of information through the constitutional discovery mandate.

Common questions

Q: What is LEADS?
A: The Law Enforcement Agencies Data System is Illinois's central law-enforcement database, run by the Illinois State Police. It pulls in criminal history record information (CHRI), the LEADS Computerized Hot Files (wanted persons, missing persons, stolen property), driver and vehicle records, FOID files, and also connects to federal systems including the Interstate Identification Index and the National Crime Information Center.

Q: What is Brady material in plain English?
A: It is any information in the State's possession or control that tends to negate the defendant's guilt, reduce the potential punishment, or call into question the credibility of a State witness. The duty to disclose it comes from the United States Constitution's Due Process Clause as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Brady v. Maryland. Failure to disclose can lead to a reversed conviction.

Q: What's the difference between Rule 412(a) and Rule 412(c)?
A: Rule 412(a) lists categories of information the State must disclose "as a matter of course" in felony cases (witness names, statements, scientific reports, prior convictions of State witnesses for impeachment, etc.). Rule 412(c) is the catch-all that codifies the Brady due-process requirement: anything within the State's possession or control that tends to negate guilt or reduce punishment. Items that fall outside Rule 412(a) can still be required by 412(c).

Q: Why does the LEADS rule exist if it conflicts with Brady?
A: It does not actually conflict. The LEADS administrative rule (20 Ill. Adm. Code § 1240.80(d)) bars dissemination to anyone "not legally authorized to have access." The opinion's analysis is that Brady, Rule 412, and the relevant due-process case law create exactly that legal authorization in the narrow set of cases where the LEADS information is favorable to a defendant.

Q: What about FBI-sourced records (Interstate Identification Index, NCIC)?
A: The federal regulations are tighter. 28 C.F.R. § 20.33 generally allows dissemination of FBI-sourced CHRI only to criminal justice agencies for criminal justice purposes, and the FBI can revoke a state's access for violations. The opinion notes the FBI has acknowledged that the rule "must yield in narrow circumstances to the inherent powers of courts." When the favorable information rides in on FBI-sourced records, the safest path is in camera review and a court order specifying disclosure.

Q: Does the State have to search LEADS for Brady material affirmatively, or only disclose what they already have?
A: The Illinois Supreme Court Rule 412(f) requires the State to "ensure that a flow of information is maintained" between investigators and the prosecutor's office sufficient to capture all material relevant to the accused. Crivens v. Roth and United States v. Young take slightly different views on the duty to search out-of-state records that LEADS can reach. The safe practice is: query LEADS on every State witness whose credibility is material, and produce or summarize anything that turns up.

Q: What about misdemeanor cases?
A: Misdemeanor discovery in Illinois is more limited than felony discovery (governed by statute and case law rather than the full Rule 412 framework), but Brady material must still be disclosed. The same analysis would apply.

Background and statutory framework

How LEADS works

LEADS is governed by 20 ILCS 2605/2605-45(1) and a detailed body of administrative rules at 20 Ill. Adm. Code Part 1240. The Illinois State Police (the operating agency) divides LEADS access into "full access" (criminal justice agencies, courts, and certain candidate organizations) and "less than full access" (limited inquiry rights). Defense attorneys and public defenders are not "criminal justice agencies" under the federal regulations or the state rules, because they do not "administer criminal justice" within the meaning of 28 C.F.R. § 20.3(b) and 20 Ill. Adm. Code § 1240.30(c)(1)(A).

How Brady works

The constitutional rule from Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) requires the prosecutor to disclose favorable evidence material to guilt or punishment. Giglio and its progeny extended that to impeachment evidence (information that calls a key witness's credibility into question). Kyles v. Whitley clarified that the duty extends to evidence known to the police even if the prosecutor does not personally know about it. Strickler held that the obligation reaches favorable information known only to the police. The materiality standard from Beaman (and Bagley) is whether there is a reasonable probability the outcome would have been different had the evidence been disclosed.

How Rule 412 ties them together

Illinois Supreme Court Rule 412 is the practical machinery for criminal discovery in Illinois felony cases. Rule 412(a) requires the State to disclose certain categories as a matter of course. Rule 412(c) codifies the constitutional Brady requirement. Rule 415 governs sanctions and protective orders. Rule 415(e) explicitly anticipates documents that contain both discoverable and non-discoverable information, and authorizes excision of the non-discoverable parts. The opinion uses Rule 415(e) as the textual hook for the "extract and write up" approach.

The professional responsibility overlay

Rule 3.8(d) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct goes further than Brady: a prosecutor "shall make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense." The ABA's Formal Opinion 09-454 (which the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission appears to follow) reads Rule 3.8(d) as an ethical duty independent of Brady, owed without regard to materiality or trial outcome. The AG's opinion notes this and effectively tells prosecutors that the LEADS rules cannot be used as a reason to fall short of Rule 3.8(d).

The practical workflow the opinion blesses

1. Run LEADS queries on State witnesses and (where defense theory warrants) third parties.
2. Review the resulting reports for content that tends to negate guilt or reduce punishment, or impeach a State witness.
3. Extract the favorable material, write it up in a separate document, and disclose that document.
4. For mixed documents, redact or excise non-discoverable LEADS content under Rule 415(e).
5. For close calls, ask the trial court to review the underlying LEADS report in camera and decide.

Citations and references

Statutes and rules:
- 20 ILCS 2605/2605-45 (LEADS authorizing statute)
- 725 ILCS 5/114-13 (Discovery procedures in criminal cases)
- 20 Ill. Adm. Code Part 1240 (LEADS administrative rules)
- Illinois Supreme Court Rules 411–415 (criminal discovery)
- 28 C.F.R. Part 20 (federal CHRI regulations)

Foundational cases:
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995)
- Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987)
- People v. Beaman, 229 Ill. 2d 56 (2008)
- People v. Bean, 137 Ill. 2d 65 (1990)

Source

• Index page: https://illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/
• Original PDF: https://illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/dA/737655bb9c/2024%2024-001%20CRIMINAL%20LAW%20AND%20PROCEDURE%20%20Authority%20of%20State%27s%20Attorney%20to%20Disclose%20Brady%20Material%20Found%20in%20LEADS%20Reports%20.pdf

Original opinion text

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
STATE OF ILLINOIS

KWAME RAOUL
ATTORNEY GENERAL

December 12, 2024

FILE NO. 24-001

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE:
Authority of State's Attorney to
Disclose Brady Material Found
in LEADS Reports

The Honorable Jamie L. Mosser
State's Attorney, Kane County
Kane County Judicial Center
37W777 Route 38
St. Charles, Illinois 60175

Dear Ms. Mosser:

I have your letter inquiring whether Illinois Supreme Court Rule 412 (effective March 1, 2001) and the requirements set forth in decisions like Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and its progeny, provide legal authorization for a State's Attorney's office to disclose relevant Law Enforcement Agencies Data System (LEADS) information to an attorney who is representing a defendant in a criminal prosecution. If not, you have asked how a State's Attorney's office should appropriately carry out its duties during a criminal prosecution consistent with its obligations under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 412, Brady and its progeny, and Rule 3.8 of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct of 2010, while also complying with the administrative rules associated with LEADS.

For the reasons stated below, it is my opinion that, under appropriate circumstances, a State's Attorney's office is authorized to disclose certain information it has obtained from LEADS to criminal defense attorneys under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 412 and the due process requirements set forth in Brady and its progeny.

BACKGROUND

LEADS

LEADS is a "statewide, computerized telecommunications system designed to provide services, information, and capabilities to the law enforcement and criminal justice community in the State of Illinois." 20 ILCS 2605/2605-45(1) (West 2023 Supp.). Pursuant to subsection 2605-45(1) of the Illinois State Police Law, the Division of Justice Services within the Illinois State Police is charged with operating and maintaining LEADS, and the Director of the Illinois State Police is responsible for establishing policy, procedures, and regulations consistent with State and federal rules, policies, and law by which LEADS operates.

LEADS provides law enforcement agencies access to an array of databases maintained by various government agencies in and outside of Illinois. Data available through a LEADS computer includes, but is not limited to, criminal history record information (CHRI); LEADS Computerized Hot Files (which contain information primarily concerning wanted and missing persons and stolen property); driver's license, title, and vehicle registration information maintained by the Illinois Secretary of State; motor vehicle and driver's license files of other states; and Firearm Owners Identification files. LEADS is also connected to national records systems, some of which are maintained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). One of these systems is the Interstate Identification Index System, which facilitates the decentralized exchange of criminal history records across the states based on queries of names and other unique identifiers.

Federal Regulations

The Department of Justice has issued federal regulations to ensure that CHRI gathered by state, local, and federal criminal justice agencies is collected, stored, and disseminated in a manner that protects individual privacy and ensures the accuracy, currency, completeness, security, and integrity of that information. 28 C.F.R. § 20.1 (2023). The federal regulations place limited restrictions on how states and local governments may collect, store, and disseminate their own CHRI. 28 C.F.R. pt. 20, Subpart B. For example, the regulations specifically require states to limit dissemination of nonconviction data to criminal justice agencies, their contractors, researchers, and other "[i]ndividuals and agencies for any purpose authorized by statute, ordinance, executive order, or court rule, decision, or order, as construed by appropriate State or local officials or agencies[.]" 28 C.F.R. § 20.21(b)(2) (2023).

The federal regulations also address how local, state, and federal criminal justice agencies may use CHRI obtained from FBI systems, such as the Interstate Identification Index System. With limited exceptions, CHRI obtained from FBI systems may only be disseminated to state and local criminal justice agencies for criminal justice purposes. 28 C.F.R. § 20.33(a). Unlike the regulations governing state and local CHRI systems, there is no distinction between conviction and nonconviction data, and there is no provision pertaining to federal systems that allows for the dissemination of CHRI pursuant to a state court order or rule. Access to the national system may be revoked if a law enforcement agency disseminates FBI-maintained CHRI outside of the authorized recipients specified in section 20.33.

LEADS Administrative Rules

The Illinois State Police has adopted administrative rules (the LEADS rules) (20 Ill. Adm. Code Part 1240) to regulate the behavior of law enforcement agencies and related entities that input, extract, or edit LEADS data through direct terminal access to the LEADS system. Among other things, the LEADS rules address technology requirements to establish a communication link, site management and personnel security requirements, the policy review process, records handling, training requirements, audit procedures, and sanctions for non-compliance with the rules.

Organizations with "full access" to LEADS have "direct access to all LEADS data and services." 20 Ill. Adm. Code § 1240.30(b)(2) (2024). Full access to LEADS is limited to criminal justice agencies, organizations under the control of a criminal justice agency, campus and railroad police departments, or candidate organizations that are authorized by law to access some or all LEADS data. 20 Ill. Adm. Code § 1240.30(c)(1) (2024). Participating organizations must also enter into a LEADS interagency agreement reflecting rights and duties of the parties.

Under both the federal regulations and the LEADS rules, the term "criminal justice agency" refers to courts and any government agency "that performs the administration of criminal justice[.]" Criminal defense attorneys do not administer criminal justice under these regulations and thus are not eligible to make inquiries into LEADS or the Interstate Identification Index System. Moreover, the LEADS rules address dissemination of data obtained through LEADS and provide, in relevant part:

d) LEADS data shall not be disseminated to any individual or organization that is not legally authorized to have access to the information. (Emphasis added.)

According to the information you have provided, the Kane County State's Attorney's office has been informed that it cannot disseminate LEADS information to a public defender's office or to a defense attorney representing a defendant in a criminal prosecution because neither entity is authorized to have access to such information under the LEADS rules. This appears to be based on a belief that the LEADS rules prohibit the dissemination of LEADS information in this instance. This results in perceived conflicts between the LEADS rules and the discovery procedures set out in Supreme Court Rule 412, the due process requirements announced by Brady, and the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct of 2010, all of which require prosecutors to disclose to the defense information that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigate the offense charged.

ANALYSIS

Disclosure Obligations of State's Attorneys

Illinois Supreme Court rules regulating discovery in criminal cases establish the prosecutorial obligation to disclose pertinent information to criminal defense attorneys in criminal proceedings. Supreme Court Rule 412 sets forth the prosecutor's disclosure obligations in cases where the accused is charged with a felony. Supreme Court Rule 412(a) lists information that must be disclosed "as a matter of course" in criminal proceedings. Upon written motion of defense counsel, the State is required to disclose "any record of prior criminal convictions, which may be used for impeachment, of persons whom the State intends to call as witnesses at the hearing or trial." Ill. S. Ct. R. 412(a)(vi).

Brady, as Incorporated by Supreme Court Rule 412(c)

The Brady rule is in place to safeguard a criminal defendant's interest in fair proceedings and ensure that prosecutors fulfill their duties to seek truth and justice. People v. Beaman, 229 Ill. 2d 56, 73 (2008). In Brady, the United States Supreme Court set forth a prosecutor's affirmative duty to disclose evidence favorable to a defendant. Specifically, the Court held, in part, that "the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution." Brady, 373 U.S. at 87. The Brady rule encompasses both exculpatory evidence and impeachment evidence. United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 676 (1985); Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154 (1972). A prosecutor's duty to disclose evidence favorable to a defendant applies regardless of whether there has been a request for exculpatory or impeachment information. Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 432-33 (1995). Brady material includes information affecting the credibility of government witnesses, "[w]hen the 'reliability of a given witness may well be determinative of guilt or innocence[.]'" Giglio, 405 U.S. at 154, quoting Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 269 (1959).

Supreme Court Rule 412(c) (effective March 1, 2001) codifies the due process requirements set forth in Brady. Rule 412(c) provides:

(c) Except as is otherwise provided in these rules as to protective orders, the State shall disclose to defense counsel any material or information within its possession or control which tends to negate the guilt of the accused as to the offense charged or which would tend to reduce his punishment therefor.

Rule 412(c) covers circumstances where disclosure of the information listed under Rule 412(a) would not fulfill the constitutional due process duties set forth in Brady and its progeny. For example, Illinois courts have found that, under certain circumstances, in addition to conviction information required under Rule 412(a), Rule 412(c) requires the State to disclose potentially impeaching witness information such as pending criminal charges, juvenile adjudications, and whether a witness is on probation. People v. Williams, 329 Ill. App. 3d 846, 858 (2002).

Rule 3.8(d) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct

Rule 3.8(d) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct of 2010 describes the special responsibilities of a prosecutor with respect to disclosures to the defense and provides that the prosecutor in a criminal case shall:

(d) make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense, and, in connection with sentencing, disclose to the defense and to the tribunal all unprivileged mitigating information known to the prosecutor, except when the prosecutor is relieved of this responsibility by a protective order of the tribunal[.]

This language is substantially similar to that found in Illinois Supreme Court Rule 412(c). It is also identical to ABA Model Rule 3.8(d). In ABA formal opinion No. 09-454, issued July 8, 2009, the ABA characterized Model Rule 3.8(d) and its state analogs as imposing an ethical obligation independent of the obligations required by the Brady rule, statute, court rules, court orders, and procedural rules. Model Rule 3.8(d), as interpreted by the ABA, is more demanding than the Brady rule with respect to disclosure obligations "in that it requires the disclosure of evidence or information favorable to the defense without regard to the anticipated impact of the evidence or information on a trial's outcome."

Disclosure of LEADS Information

Brady applies to all favorable, material evidence that the State possesses. United States v. Roberts, 534 F.3d 560, 572 (7th Cir. 2008). Moreover, prosecutors have an affirmative duty to "learn of any favorable evidence known to the others acting on the government's behalf in the case, including the police." Kyles, 514 U.S. at 437. Brady extends to favorable information that is known only to the police and not to prosecutors. Strickler, 527 U.S. at 280-81. If the prosecution team has knowledge and possession of favorable information, it does not matter, for Brady purposes, if that information originated with a law enforcement agency in another jurisdiction. People v. Plummer, 2021 IL App (1st) 200299, ¶¶ 125-28; People v. Olinger, 176 Ill. 2d 326, 347-51 (1997). It follows that favorable, material information obtained from LEADS in the prosecution's possession is subject to Brady's constitutional mandate regardless of its origin.

Given the sensitive information that is contained in LEADS, coupled with the general prohibition against the dissemination of LEADS data, the information obtained from LEADS and disclosed to the defense must necessarily be limited in scope to information that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or reduce his or her punishment.

The primary responsibility to disclose Brady material falls on the prosecutor. In those instances where a prosecutor has made a good faith effort to specifically identify and extract Brady material obtained from LEADS, but questions remain concerning the disclosure of certain other information available in a LEADS report, a criminal defendant's constitutional due process right is fully protected if the trial court reviews privileged records in camera and, at its discretion, discloses to the defense the material, exculpatory information. People v. Bean, 137 Ill. 2d 65, 99 (1990); Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 58-61 (1987). Additionally, Illinois Supreme Court Rule 415(e) anticipates instances where documents subject to discovery contain both discoverable and non-discoverable information. In the event that a LEADS document contains information that is subject to discovery because it is favorable to the accused as well as information that is not subject to discovery (because it is not subject to the Brady rule, a discovery statute, or an Illinois Supreme Court rule), it is permissible for the prosecution or a court to excise the non-discoverable information.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, it is my opinion that Illinois Supreme Court Rule 412 and the requirements set forth in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and its progeny, provide legal authorization for a State's Attorney's office to disclose, under appropriate circumstances, relevant discoverable information obtained from LEADS to an attorney who is representing a defendant who is a party to a criminal prosecution. The information obtained from LEADS and disclosed to the defense must be limited in scope to information that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or reduce his or her punishment. The State's Attorney's office may fulfill this discovery obligation by obtaining any discoverable LEADS information, reducing that information to writing, and then tendering that information to the defense without tendering the LEADS printout wholesale.

KWAME RAOUL
ATTORNEY GENERAL