A U.S. district court judge has reversed his earlier orders in a case against a Westbrook man after it was revealed that police had been watching him for years through his neighbor’s security camera.

For over three years, Westbrook police officer and Maine Drug Enforcement Agency agent Phil Robinson monitored Willie Banks’ home through the neighbor’s camera. In 2024, the camera footage was instrumental in incriminating Banks in connection with a shooting outside his home.

Prosecutors failed to disclose the extent of the continuous, technology-assisted police surveillance, which was conducted without judicial authorization. That evidence was revealed in May, shortly before Banks’ trial, set for early June.

The revelation raised concerns about the legality of the investigation, the government’s compliance with its disclosure obligations, and whether Banks’ due process rights had been violated, according to U.S. District Judge Lance Walker’s new order from July 2.

Walker’s order reopened suppression proceedings and indicated further sanctions are possible.

On March 13, 2024, police responded to gunshots reported outside of Banks’ apartment on Cumberland Street. They arrested two people, including Banks, and no injuries were reported.

Banks is charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm, which was found during a search of his home. Police obtained a search warrant for Banks’ home after Robinson identified him from the video footage.

Walker previously had denied Banks’ motion to suppress evidence, his motion for sanctions against prosecutors and his request for a hearing to challenge the validity of the search warrant.

In May, an investigator working with the defense interviewed the neighbor.

The neighbor revealed that Westbrook police officer and Maine drug enforcement agent Phil Robinson had remote access to the security camera, which had a non-public view of Banks’ home.

Robinson monitored the camera with “some regularity,” and he didn’t document this arrangement in any report.

In June, prosecutors also disclosed text messages between the neighbor’s spouse and Robinson spanning five years.

In light of the new evidence, Walker wrote in his new order that his previous orders were decided based on incomplete information, and the case can’t proceed to trial as is.

“At best, we have an untimely disclosure resulting from negligence or miscommunication between the government and its investigative partners that can be adequately cured by reopening suppression proceedings,” Walker wrote in his new order. “At worst, we have a serious disclosure transgression resulting from law enforcement’s active concealment of the truth from the defense, the court, and perhaps even the government — misconduct for which a greater sanction may be required.”

A new hearing will determine whether Banks’ Fourth Amendment rights were violated, consider whether the government complied with disclosure requirements under the Constitution, and evaluate Robinson’s conduct.

After the hearing, the defense may renew the motion to suppress evidence, renew any argument that the government violated disclosure obligations and discuss further sanctions.