In People v. Briseno, 211 Mich App 11, 12; 535 NW2d 559 (1995), a drug courier, Ernesto Gonzalez, was caught following a traffic stop with marijuana. Gonzalez, acting in cooperation with law enforcement officers, called Tim Miller to notify him of the delivery of marijuana. Gonzalez and Miller made arrangements to store the vehicle that had the marijuana concealed in a special bumper. The defendant was the third man involved in the drug conspiracy. Following his conviction for conspiracy to deliver marijuana, the defendant asserted that his right to confrontation was violated where the prosecutor failed to make diligent efforts to secure the production of Gonzalez as a witness at trial. Id. at 14. Police testified regarding the efforts to locate Gonzalez. A personal visit was made to the last known address. There, police spoke to Gonzalez' mother. She told them that she had not seen her son since the start of the trial. While Gonzalez had told his mother that he was going to California, he had not left a telephone number or address. A new address could not be located. Additionally, there was no indication that Gonzalez had received a California driver's license. While Gonzalez had left a telephone number with authorities and assured them that he could be reached, attempts to contact him at that number were fruitless. Gonzalez had also assured the court that he would remain in contact with his attorney, but Gonzalez failed to do so. In response, the defendant gave numerous examples of possible methods of locating Gonzalez. However, the Court held that the trial court's finding that the prosecution had exercised due diligence was not clearly erroneous and admission of the preliminary examination testimony at trial was proper. Id. at 15-16. Furthermore, the Court held that authorities were not required to exhaust all avenues for locating a witness, but had a duty only to exercise a reasonable, good-faith effort in locating him. Id. at 16.