A split appeals panel held the secretly recorded video of a drug sale, along with an informant’s testimony, is admissible in a criminal case.The 3rd District Appellate Court ruled those elements were not barred under the state’s eavesdropping law, even though the defendant in the case was not the intended target of an overhear authorization.Although the parties agreed the audio element was inadmissible because the authorization was aimed at a different person, Justice Daniel L. Schmidt wrote that the video component …