Court Opinion

ID: 9728564
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:11:17.459317+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:49.783497
License: Public Domain

WOLLMAN, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
I would hold that the trial court did not err in not quashing the search warrant (if indeed a warrant was necessary in the first place). The manuals accompanying the devices are explicit in their description of how hashish oil can be derived from marijuana through the use of the devices. The material from the magazine “High Times” referred to in the affidavit for the search warrant is equally as explicit in its description of the purpose for which these devices are sold. Accordingly, I would hold that the affidavit established probable cause that the devices constituted equipment intended for use in processing marijuana within the meaning of SDCL 34-20B-70(2).