N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. JER AD JOHN KYNASTON, AKA Ja re d J. Ky na s ton, AKA Je ra d J. Ky

na ston; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 12-30208 D.C . No. 2:12-c r-00016-W FN-1 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of W a shington W m . Fre m

m ing Nie lse n, Se n ior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d July

8, 2013 Se a ttle , W a s hington B e fore : KLEINFELD, M . SM ITH, a nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. R e vie wing de novo, we hold tha t the Le on good fa ith e xc e ption to the e xc lusiona

ry rule a pplie s. Unite d State s v. C re ws, 502 F.3d 1130, 1135–36 (9th 

# FIL ED JUL 24 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.C ir. 2007); se e a l so Unite d Stat e s v. Le o n, 468 U.S. 897 (1984). R e a sona bly we lltra ine d offic e rs, re ly ing upon the Spoka n e C o unty Distric t Judge ’ s a ut horiz a tion, would not ha

ve known tha

t the se arc h wa s ille ga l. Unite d State s v. C la rk, 31 F.3d 831, 835 (9th C ir. 1994). The a ffidavit wa s not so la c king in indic i a of proba ble c a u se tha t offic ia l be lie f in proba

ble c a use wa s obje c tive ly

unre a sona

ble . At the tim e the a ffidavit wa s pre pa re d a nd the se arc h wa

rra nt wa s e xe c ute d, W a sh. R e v . C ode Se c tion 69.51A.20 provide d tha

t “ [n] othing in this c

ha pte r sha ll be c onstrue d to supe rse d e W a shington sta

te la w prohibiting the

a c quisition, posse ssion, m anufa c ture , sa le , or use of c anna

b is for nonm e dic a l purpose s.” W a sh. R e v. C ode Se c t ion 69.50.401(1) prohibite d the m anufa c ture of m arijua na and the posse ssion of m a rijua na with inte nt to m anufa c ture or de l ive r. Thus, them anufa c ture of m arijua nafor nonm e dic a l purpose s wa s still a c rim e unde r W a shington la w . Nothing in the

re c ord indic a te s tha

t offic e rs ha d

e v ide nc e tha

t the house and grounds to be se arc he d we re the s ite of a

m e dic a l m arijua

na grow. The proba

ble c a use a ffida vit sta te d tha t a n offic e r sm e lle d the odor of growing or fre shly ha rve ste d m a

rijua na ne ar the house to be se arc he d , tha

t offic e rs obse rve d m arijua na ste m s a nd le ave s in the house , a

nd that the house ’ s e le c tric ity

c onsum ption wa s e x tre m e ly high. It e sta blishe d at le a st 2a

“ c olora ble argum e nt” for the e xiste nc e of proba ble c a use . Unite d State s v. C re ws, 502 F.3d a

t 1136. The wa rra nt wa s not so fa c ia lly

de fic ie nt tha

t e xe c ut ing offic e rs c ould not re a s ona bly pre sum e it va lid. It sta

te d the pla c e to be se arc he d a n d the things to be se iz e d, a nd wa s not unc onstitutiona lly ove rbroa d. Se e , e .g., Unite d State s v. Huggins, 299 F.3d 1039, 1044 n.4 (9th C ir. 2002). It a lle g e d a

re a s ona ble ne xus be twe e n e vide n c e of a

c rim e and the prope rty

to be se arc h e d. Se e , e .g., Unite d Stat e s v. Gra

nt, 682 F.3d 827, 838–40 (9th C ir. 2012); Unite d State s v. C re w s, 502 F.3d at 1136-37.
It wa s not ne c e ssa

ry for the Gove rnm e nt to introduc e e vide nc e e xpla i ning why the offic e rs be lie ve d

tha t the y ha d proba

ble c a use . Unite d State s v. C la rk, 31 F.3d at 835 (“ Although westa t e the [Le on e x c e ption] in te rm s of ‘ good fa ith,’ the Supre m e C ourt ha s ‘ e sc he w[e d] inquirie s into the subje c t ive be lie fs of la w e nforc e m e nt offic e rs.’ C o nse que ntly , the inquiry is one of obje c tive re a s ona ble ne s s; we m

ust de c ide whe the r a

re a sona bly we ll-tra ine d offic e r would have known tha

t this pa rtic ula r se arc h wa s ille ga l de spite the m a g istra te judge ’ s a uthoriz ation.” ) (quoting Unite d State s v. Le on, 468 U.S. a t 922 n.23). 3B e c a

u se the Le o n good fa ith e xc e ption a pplie s, the fruits of the se a rc h should not be

suppre sse d. The distric t c ourt’ s orde rs to the c ontra ry are re ve rse d.
R EVER SED AND REM ANDED.

4