Opinion ID: 1227989
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Aerial identification of marijuana plants.

Text: (15) Appellant urges that probable cause for issuance of the warrant was not established, since it is impossible to identify marijuana plants from altitudes of 1,000 feet and above. Both Agent Brown, who was the warrant affiant, and Detective Vulich testified that their opinions arose from the evidence of cultivation  that the suspected plants were lusher green than the surrounding vegetation, spaced evenly and established in orderly rows in an area of disturbed earth. Moreover, the officers noted, the plants were within an enclosed area some distance from the structures on the property and connected to the structures by footpaths. Both officers admitted they could not distinguish the individual shapes or characteristics of the plants. At the preliminary hearing, a botanist, Dr. Norris, testified that marijuana has no unique color which distinguishes it from other cultivated crops. [10] It is impossible, said Dr. Norris, to determine from 1,000 feet the identity of common plants under cultivation. However, the officers were permitted to use their experience in marijuana detection, [11] and their common sense, to form their opinions. Both emphasized that it was a combination of factors which aroused their suspicions. Agent Brown noted, for example, that the distance from the gardens to the trailer structures was a common pattern for marijuana in particular. The multiple well-worn footpaths connecting the structures to the garden suggested intense activity in the relatively small cultivation area. Moreover, the size and spacing of the plants, the remoteness and ruggedness of the terrain, the temporary look of the structures on the property, and the prevalence of marijuana cultivation in just such settings, all could contribute to a strong inference that this was the crop growing on appellant's land. The superior court's resolution of any factual dispute over ability to identify was thus substantially supported, and we cannot disturb it. ( People v. Leyba (1981) 29 Cal.3d 591, 596-597 [174 Cal. Rptr. 867, 629 P.2d 961].) [12]