In State v. Blair, 181 N.C. App. 236, 245-46, 638 S.E.2d 914, 921, disc. review denied, 361 N.C. 570, 650 S.E.2d 815 (2007), the State asked an officer why he was conducting surveillance of the location where the robbery occurred on the day of the robbery. Id. The officer testified that he conducted the surveillance of that location on that day because police had received "numerous complaints of prostitution, street-level drugs, larcenies, shoplifting, robberies, and assaults." Id. Our Court held that the officer's testimony "was not admitted for the truth of the matter asserted, but rather to explain why the officer was in a position to observe the robbery. Therefore, the statement was not hearsay and was admissible." Id.