Hearsay hearings

In California, as well as many other states, the trial court may rely on hearsay statements for their truth in determining whether a defendant shall be held to answer (re: whether there is probable cause that a crime was committed and that it was committed by the defendant). Preliminary hearings are thus a sham. A police officer takes the stand. The police officer relates to the court what witnesses heard, said, smelled, etc. This testimony is offered for the truth of the matter asserted. Defendants are held to answer without ever having the opportunity to run the testimony of the witness through the crucible.

Does the rule in Crawford v. Washington (No. 02-9410)sweep broadly enough that this practice is no longer constitutional?