Hello everyone -- I need some help. Our drug task force used an informant to buy drugs & video taped (with audio) the transactions. Before the purchases occurred, they had a little intro on the tape where the case agent described what they believed was about to happen & identifying everyone present. Then the transaction would take place. Then the case agent would come back on, weigh & describe the drugs purchased, for what amount, & have the informant identify (if possible) the person/s who sold the drugs. The officers were in the immediate area & watched the whole thing on camera. I just got a motion to suppress the tape because of confrontation clause (the informant has flown the coup). I haven't been able to find any cases directly on point. I think I should at the very least be able to show the jury the transaction itself with the audio on. The intro and post-transaction interviews may be another matter after reading Crawford, Moore, etc. What do you all think? If you don't want to give away any trade secrets, e-mail me at: ehernandez@wacounty.com

THANKS FOR YOUR HELP!

On the drug deal itself you might look at:

United States v. Tolliver, 454 F.3d 660, 665-66 (7th Cir. 2006) (videotaped drug deal; defendant's own statements can never offend Confrontation Clause; informant's statements were not offered for their truth)

United States v. Van Sach, 458 F.3d 694, 700-702 (7th Cir. 2006)(informant's statements on video were admissible where not offered for their truth)

Com. v. Holton, 906 A.2d 1246, 1253-54 (Pa.Super. 2006)(accomplice's statements to undercover cop at drug deal were not testimonial)

Porterfield v. State, --- P.3d ----, 2006 WL 2924927 (Alaska App. October 13, 2006) (collecting cases; recordings of wife's statements to undercover agent were not testimonial)

David, thanks for the cites. The way I take it, then I was on the right track. Intro and post-deal interview of informant are probably out, but drug deal itself should be in. Is that what you're saying?