In Hines v. Superior Court (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 1231 ,the Court held as a matter of first impression that the section 1040 privilege applies to surveillance locations. The Hines court went on to reject the Attorney General's argument that no adverse finding was required by section 1042 in that case because the police officer's surveillance location was not material. The opinion noted that the Attorney General "concedes that 'what is important is whether or not the testifying police officer was able to adequately observe the narcotics transactions' " of which the defendant was accused, and stressed that "this was the very issue to which the privileged information was material." (203 Cal.App.3d at p. 1235.) The court concluded that because the prosecution's invocation of the privilege resulted "in depriving the defendant of his fundamental right to cross-examination on a material issue, an adverse finding was mandated by section 1042 ... ." (Ibid.) In Hines, the court advised that the appropriate adverse "order or finding" ( 1042, subd. (a)) would be an order striking the officer's testimony regarding his observations, from the privileged location, of the defendant's narcotics sale activities. (Hines, supra, 203 Cal.App.3d at p. 1236.) Because such an order, in the case before it, would leave the prosecution without evidence sufficient to support the information filed against the defendant, the court held that the defendant's motion to dismiss under Penal Code section 995 should have been granted.