## Facts

- Officers Glen Lewellen and Noel Sanchez conducted surveillance of an apartment after receiving a tip about ongoing drug activity.
- The officers positioned themselves on opposite sides of the apartment building and communicated by radio during the surveillance.
- Over roughly three hours, Lewellen observed Refugio Ruiz repeatedly exit the apartment, look around as if checking the area, and return inside.
- A car eventually arrived. Lewellen saw Ruiz motion to the car, go back into the apartment, and then come out carrying a large bag.
- Police intervened, and the bag was found to contain about 10 kilograms of cocaine.
- Ruiz was charged with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute.
- At trial, the government called Sanchez, who testified about Ruiz’s appearance, movements, and conduct based on what Lewellen relayed to him by radio during the stakeout.
- Ruiz objected that Sanchez’s account of Lewellen’s radio statements was hearsay; the district court admitted the testimony.
- A jury convicted Ruiz, and he appealed, challenging the admission of the radioed statements through Sanchez’s testimony.

## Issues

1. Whether Lewellen’s contemporaneous radio descriptions of Ruiz’s conduct, introduced through Sanchez’s testimony, were inadmissible hearsay or admissible under the present sense impression exception in Federal Rule of Evidence 803(1).
2. Whether Rule 803(1) requires independent corroboration of the declarant’s observations, or whether accusations of fabrication bar admission of the statements.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit held that Lewellen’s radio transmissions describing what he was observing during the stakeout qualified as present sense impressions under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(1).
- The court rejected the argument that Rule 803(1) imposes an extra corroboration requirement as a condition of admissibility.
- The court held that challenges claiming the declarant fabricated the observations generally go to the weight of the evidence for the jury, not to admissibility, if the Rule 803(1) requirements are met.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed Ruiz’s conviction.

## Legal Principles

- Under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(1), a statement describing or explaining an event or condition is admissible if made while the declarant was perceiving the event or immediately thereafter.
- Real-time or near-real-time descriptions of events observed during ongoing surveillance can satisfy Rule 803(1)’s timing requirement, including statements communicated by radio.
- Rule 803(1) does not, by its text, require independent corroboration of the declarant’s observations as a prerequisite to admission.
- Claims that a witness had a motive or opportunity to fabricate a present sense impression typically affect credibility and the weight the jury may give the evidence, not whether the evidence is admissible under Rule 803(1).
- A trial court’s decision to admit evidence under a hearsay exception is generally reviewed on appeal for abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

United States v. Ruiz, 249 F.3d 643 (2001), upheld the admission of an officer’s contemporaneous radio descriptions of a suspect’s conduct during surveillance as present sense impressions under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(1). The Seventh Circuit affirmed Ruiz’s conviction, concluding that the rule does not add a corroboration prerequisite and that disputes about possible fabrication are for the jury to consider in weighing the evidence.
