In Astran v. State, 799 S.W.2d 761 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990), Officer Wilson, who actually viewed the offense, was undercover at the time, purchasing heroin from the defendant. After making his purchase, Wilson radioed the other officers "a detailed description of defendant, which included his height, weight, and location." Id. The defendant was arrested, but Wilson did not actually conduct or witness the arrest. Id. Ultimately, the court held that "as long as the facts show that the viewing officer effectively participated in the arrest and was fully aware of the circumstances of the arrest, then Art. 14.01 is satisfied." Id. at 764. The court further held that Wilson did not have to personally make the arrest because his "participation in and awareness of the circumstances of the arrest made him `just as much a participant in defendant's arrest as if he has seized the defendant himself."' Id. In Astran v. State, which involved a controlled undercover drug purchase, the appellant similarly argued that his arrest and search were constitutionally invalid "because the undercover officer who saw the felony did not actually make the arrest." 799 S.W.2d at 762. The undercover officer in Astran did not observe the eventual arrest. Id. Nevertheless, the Court found that the arrest and search were valid because the undercover officer "saw the felony, was part of a team of officers present at the scene of the offense, and relayed appellant's physical description and geographic location to the arresting officer." Id. at 763. Additionally, "even though the undercover officer did not visually observe the arrest, he was parked two blocks away and maintained constant radio communication with the arresting officer during the arrest." Id. The Court held that that an arrest is proper under article 14.01 "as long as the facts show that the viewing officer effectively participated in the arrest and was fully aware of the circumstances of the arrest." Id. at 764.