## Facts

- Two anonymous 911 calls, made minutes apart by the same caller, reported active crack-cocaine dealing at 2505 Sweetgum Street.
- The caller identified the suspected dealer as “Kennedy Polidore,” described a red PT Cruiser, and provided real-time details about the suspect’s clothing and movements.
- In the second call, the caller stated the drugs were hidden in the driver’s side door panel and asked police to act when the suspect left because the drugs were “for sure” in the car.
- Officers responded, located a red PT Cruiser consistent with the description, and found crack cocaine in the driver’s side door panel.
- Polidore was charged and convicted by a jury in the Eastern District of Texas of possessing crack cocaine with intent to distribute.
- Over objection, the district court admitted redacted portions of the two 911 recordings at trial.

## Issues

1. Whether admitting the redacted 911-call statements violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause because the caller’s statements were testimonial.
2. Whether the caller’s statements were inadmissible hearsay because they did not fall within a hearsay exception, including the present sense impression exception under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(1).

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence.
- The court held the admitted 911-call statements were non-testimonial because their primary purpose was to obtain police assistance for ongoing criminal activity, not to create evidence for prosecution.
- The court held the statements were admissible under Rule 803(1) as present sense impressions because they described events as they were occurring or immediately after the caller perceived them.

## Legal Principles

- Under Confrontation Clause doctrine, statements are testimonial when their primary purpose is to establish or prove past events for later prosecution; statements aimed at resolving an ongoing emergency are generally non-testimonial.
- Anonymous 911-call statements that contemporaneously report ongoing criminal conduct and seek immediate police response may be non-testimonial even if they identify a suspect and provide descriptive details.
- Federal Rule of Evidence 803(1) permits admission of a statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while, or immediately after, the declarant perceived it.
- Close temporal proximity between perception and statement supports admission as a present sense impression because it reduces the likelihood of reflective fabrication.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit upheld admission of redacted anonymous 911 calls identifying Polidore and describing ongoing drug dealing because the statements were made to obtain immediate police assistance, were non-testimonial for Sixth Amendment purposes, and qualified as present sense impressions under Rule 803(1).


United States v. Polidore, 690 F.3d 705 (5th Cir. 2012)