FILED 


JULY 31, 2014 


In the Office of the Clerk of Court 


W A State Court of Appeals, Division III 


IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 


DIVISION THREE 


STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) No. 31052-3-III 

) 

Respondent, ) 

) 

v. ) PUBLISHED OPINION 

) 

MORGAN HALE DAVIS, ) 


) 


Appellant. ) 


LAWRENCE-BERREY, J. - During a helicopter fly over ofMorgan Davis's 

property, law enforcement observed at least 20 marijuana plants growing in an exposed 

greenhouse. An Okanogan deputy sheriff obtained a warrant to search two greenhouses, 

a house, and a shed on the property. The search uncovered over 121 marijuana plants in 

the greenhouses. In the home, the officers found processed marijuana and distribution 

paraphernalia. Mr. Davis was charged and convicted ofthe crime of manufacture of 

marijuana. Mr. Davis appeals, contending that the trial court erred in denying his motion 

to suppress the evidence found on the property. He maintains the affidavit supporting the 

search warrant was insufficient because it failed to consider whether the marijuana was 

legal under the 2011 amendments to the Medical Use ofMarijuana Act (MUCA), chapter 
No. 31052-3-II1 

State v. Davis 

69.51A RCW. He also maintains that the officers lacked probable cause to search the 

house because officers failed to establish a nexus between the marijuana in the 

greenhouse and the residence. Finding no error, we affirm. 

FACTS 

On June 30, 2010, Detective Jan Lewis of the North Central Washington Narcotics 

Task Force and Deputy Terry Shrable of the Okanogan County Sheriff's Office flew in a 

helicopter over property located on Reevas Basin Road near Tonasket, Washington. The 

officers observed two greenhouses. One greenhouse was partially uncovered, revealing 

to the officers approximately 20 large growing marijuana plants. The officers noted other 

buildings on the property, including a small stick built house located just east ofthe 

greenhouses and a small stick built shed west of the greenhouses. Officers confirmed that 

the property's address was 44 Reevas Basin Road and that it was owned by Mr. Davis. 

Detective Lewis flew over the property again on July 6. The tops ofthe 

greenhouses were covered with plastic, but the detective saw dark green coloring through 

the plastic. Detective Lewis believed the green color to be growing marijuana plants. 

The next day Detective Lewis obtained a warrant to search the two greenhouses, 

the house, and the shed on Reevas Basin Road. The search warrant requested permission 

to search for evidence of manufacturing marijuana, including books, records, receipts, 

2 

No. 31052-3-III 

State v. Davis 

ownership of the residence, and identifying information. In addition to a narrative of 

events by Detective Lewis, the warrant included an aerial photograph of the property 

taken during the July 6 flyover. The affidavit stated, "In this photo you can clearly see the 

green houses to the left ofthe house. The larger ofthe two green houses was half opened 

when the initial flight was done. This is the one that I could see growing marijuana plants 

in. Everything in the photo including the outbuildings is on the same parcel of property. 

There are no other driveways or houses except for the one in the photo that have access to 

these marijuana plants." Clerk's Papers (CP) at 85. 

The photograph showed the residence, greenhouses, garden area, and outbuildings 

all within a clearly defined living compound. The compound is well separated from other 

structures or homes. The residence was approximately 50 to 70 feet from the greenhouses 

and there were no other houses nearby. Also, only one access road approaches the 

property and ends there. 

On July 8, officers executed the search warrant. Upon arrival at the property, 

officers made contact with Adriane Constantine outside of the residence. She told 

officers that Ms. Hale, Mr. Davis's mother, was in the house. Officers entered the 

residence to contact Ms. Hale and asked her to wait outside. Mr. Davis arrived during the 

execution ofthe warrant. 

3 

No. 31052-3-111 

State v. Davis 

Officers located approximately 121 growing marijuana plants. The plants were 

primarily found in the greenhouses, with the exception of a few plants found growing 

outside. Inside the residence, the officers found various quantities ofprocessed 

marijuana, packaged marijuana, marijuana seeds, paperwork, receipts, cash, an electronic 

scale, and packaging material. In the small shed, officers found several dried marijuana 

plants. 

Mr. Davis was charged with one count of manufacture of marijuana under 

RCW 69.50.401. Mr. Davis moved to suppress the evidence found in the house and the 

shed. He argued that the officers lacked probable cause to search the house and shed 

because there was no nexus between the greenhouses and the house and shed. 

The trial court denied the motion. The court concluded that a clear legal nexus 

existed between the house, greenhouses, outbuildings, and immediate surrounding areas. 

In support ofthis conclusion, the court found that the photograph and the testimony 

showed that the land, house, greenhouses, garden area, and outbuildings were all within a 

clearly defined living compound. Additionally, the residence was approximately 50 to 70 

feet from the greenhouses and there were no other houses nearby. The buildings were 

well separated from other structures or homes; the nearest other structure to the property 

4 

No. 31052-3-111 

State v. Davis 

was over 700 yards away. Also, only one access road approached the property and ended 

on the property. 

A jury found Mr. Davis guilty ofmanufacture ofmarijuana. Mr. Davis appeals. 

He challenges the denial of his motion to suppress the evidence. He contends that the 

observation of 20 plants was insufficient to establish probable cause of a crime because 

the 2011 amendment to the MUCA allows for legal possession of a certain quantity of 

marijuana, and there was no information that he failed to comply with the act. He also 

contends that officers lacked probable cause to search the house and shed because there 

was no nexus between these buildings and the suspected criminal activity observed in the 

greenhouses. 

ANALYSIS 

Probable Cause and MUCA. Review of a probable cause determination has a 

historical fact component and a legal component. State v. Emery, 161 Wn. App. 172, 

201,253 P.3d 413 (2011), ajJ'd, 174 Wn.2d 741,278 P.3d 653 (2012). On matters of 

historical fact finding, we apply an abuse of discretion standard when reviewing a 

magistrate's decision on whether information provided in the warrant is reliable and 

credible. Id. at 202. Then, for the legal component, we apply de novo review to 

determine whether the qualifYing information as a whole amounts to probable cause. Id. 

5 

No. 31 052-3-III 

State v. Davis 

We consider only the information that was available to the issuing magistrate. State v. 

Olson, 73 Wn. App. 348, 354, 869 P.2d 110 (1994). 

'" It is only the probability of criminal activity, not a prima facie showing of it, that 

governs probable cause. The [issuing judge] is entitled to make reasonable inferences 

from the facts and circumstances set out in the affidavit.'" Emery, 161 Wn. App. at 202 

(alteration in original) (quoting State v. Maddox, 152 Wn.2d 499, 505,98 P.3d 1199 

(2004». 

A search warrant may only be issued upon a determination ofprobable cause. 

State v. Cole, 128 Wn.2d 262, 286, 906 P.2d 925 (1995). Probable cause exists where 

there are facts sufficient to establish a reasonable inference that the defendant is involved 

in criminal activity and that evidence of the criminal activity can be found at the place 

searched. State v. Thein, 138 Wn.2d 133, 140,977 P.2d 582 (1999). 

We reject Mr. Davis's challenge to the search warrant based on the 2011 

amendments to the MUCA. First, the 2011 amendments to the MUCA do not apply here 

because the amendments were not in effect when the search warrant was issued for Mr. 

Davis's property in 2010. The 2011 amendments do not apply retroactively. State v. 

Brown, 166 Wn. App. 99, 104,269 P.3d 359 (2012). 

6 

No. 31052-3-111 

State v. Davis 

Second, this court has previously determined that where an affidavit sets forth 

enough details to reasonably infer the suspect is growing marijuana on his or her property 

in violation of the uniform controlled substances act, chapter 69.50 RCW, the affidavit 

does not need to show the MUCA's inapplicability to establish probable cause. State v. 

Ellis, 178 Wn. App. 80 I, 805-06, 315 P 3d 1170 (2014). While the 2011 amendments to 

RCW 69.51A.040 created a medical exception to the crime of manufacturing marijuana, 

this new exception functions the same as the old medical use affirmative defense 

provided in former RCW 69.S1A.040(1) (1999), Ellis, 178 Wn. App. at 806. The 

medical use affirmative defense does not invalidate probable cause to search. [d. 

The affidavit supporting the search warrant presents probable cause to believe that 

a crime was being committed in Mr. Davis's greenhouses. The affidavit sets forth enough 

details to reasonably infer that Mr. Davis was growing marijuana on his property. The 

MUCA has no effect on the validity ofthe warrant to search Mr. Davis's greenhouses. 

The warrant to search Mr. Davis's greenhouses was supported by probable cause. 

Nexus Between the Greenhouses and the Home. The Fourth Amendment to the 

United States Constitution prohibits the issuance of a warrant unless the warrant 

particularly describes the place to be searched and the items or persons to be seized. 

Accordingly, probable cause requires a nexus between criminal activity and the item to be 

7 

No. 31052-3-III 

State v. Davis 

seized, and also a nexus between the place to be searched and the item to be seized. 

Thein, 138 Wn.2d at 140 (quoting State v. Goble, 88 Wn. App. 503, 509, 945 P.2d 263 

(1997)). 

While the affidavit need not make a prima facie showing of criminal activity, it 

must show criminal activity is at least probable. Maddox, 152 Wn.2d at 505. Warrants 

must be based on specific facts, but a magistrate reviewing a warrant application is 

entitled to rely on his or her own common sense and experience to determine what 

inferences may be reasonably drawn from the facts for purposes of making probable 

cause determinations. Thein, 138 Wn.2d at 148-49. "Judges looking for probable cause 

in an affidavit may draw reasonable inferences about where evidence is likely to be kept, 

including nearby land and buildings under the defendant's control." State v. Gebaroff, 87 

Wn. App. 11, 16,939 P.2d 706 (1997). 

In Thein, our Supreme Court held that mere conclusory assertions in a warrant 

application about the common habits of drug dealers were not enough, by themselves, to 

support the issuance of a warrant to search a suspected drug dealer's home for 

contraband. Thein, 138 Wn.2d at 150-51. Specifically, the court held that a conclusory 

assertion in an affidavit that drug traffickers commonly store a portion of their drug 

inventory and paraphernalia in their residences was insufficient to establish a nexus 

8 

No. 31052-3-111 

State v. Davis 

between evidence of illegal drug activity and the place to be searched, absent any 

statements actually tying the defendant's home to suspected criminal activity. Id. at 151. 

Here, a sufficient nexus existed between the marijuana observed in the 

greenhouses and the search of the house and shed. The warrant established that the house 

and shed were located on the same defined parcel of land as the greenhouses and were 

close in proximity to one another. The parcel of land was owned by Mr. Davis. Access 

to both greenhouses and the home was from the same, single driveway. The officers 

observed at least 20 marijuana plants in one exposed part ofthe greenhouses. Based on 

these facts, it is reasonable for the court to infer that the house and shed allowed for 

tending the large grow operation and provided an on-site location to process the harvested 

marijuana. The affidavit in support ofthe warrant supports a reasonable inference that 

the house was related to the marijuana growing in the greenhouses and evidence of 

criminal activity could be found inside. 

Unlike Thein, probable cause is not based on conclusions about the general habits 

of drug offenders. Instead, specific facts establish a sufficient basis that the house and 

shed were related to the marijuana growing in the greenhouses. The close physical 

proximity ofthe greenhouses to the home and the shed, Mr. Davis's control over both 

areas, and the single entrance for both the house and the greenhouses, provided probable 

9 

No. 31052-3-II1 

State v. Davis 

cause to believe that the house and shed were part of the marijuana manufacture 

operation. Accordingly, the affidavit in support of the search warrant established 

probable cause to search the home for evidence related to the manufacture and 

distribution of marijuana. 

The trial court did not err when it denied Mr. Davis's motion to suppress the 

evidence found in the house and shed. A sufficient nexus existed between the house and 

shed and the marijuana found growing in the greenhouses. 

We affirm. 

Lawrence-Berrey, J. 

WE CONCUR: 

10