Opinion ID: 2500041
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: A commonsense reading of the affidavit

Text: ¶ 12 Officer Garza's affidavit recites, Within the last 48 hours a reliable and confidential source of information (CS) contacted [narcotics] Detectives and stated he/ she observed narcotics, specifically marijuana, being grown indoors at the listed address. CP at 60. We agree with the Court of Appeals majority that this language does not clearly state the time between the informant's observations and the filing of the affidavit. Lyons, 160 Wash.App. at 106, 247 P.3d 797. The State argues that the affidavit must be interpreted to mean that the CS both observed and reported marijuana being grown within the stated 48 hour period and that any other reading is hypertechnical. We disagree. This one key sentence relates three separate actions: the CS observed marijuana being grown, the CS contacted the detectives, and the CS reported the observation. There was necessarily a time gap between the observation and the contact with the detectives. But the affidavit gives only one time reference. It is impossible for a neutral magistrate to determine how much time passed between observation and the contact and report. The magistrate, not the detectives, must conclude from the affidavit the existence of probable cause to search, but the time element is simply missing. This natural, commonsense reading of the affidavit reveals that the CS contacted detectives and relayed the tip within the last 48 hours but reveals nothing about when the CS observed marijuana growing. The State urges that Officer Garza's statement in the affidavit supports an inference that the CS's observation was contemporaneous with the tip. But an inference alone does not provide a substantial basis for determining probable cause.