230 Cal. App. 4th 490
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Deputy Gaisford received a tip from a confidential informant that Clark maintained an illegal indoor marijuana grow at a Pasadena residence he lived at; the informant showed detailed knowledge of cultivation.
- Surveillance showed Clark entering the residence and two vehicles registered to him; from the public sidewalk officers smelled a strong odor of unburnt marijuana coming from the garage.
- Officers observed a window air conditioner running on a cold night and other indicators consistent with indoor grow operations (timed/continuous cooling to mitigate grow-light heat and venting).
- Affidavit for a search warrant recited these facts and the deputy’s training/experience; a warrant issued and search seized 246 marijuana plants, harvested marijuana, cocaine, firearms, scales, packaging, grow equipment, and other items.
- Clark moved to suppress, arguing the affidavit did not address whether the marijuana cultivation was lawful medical use under the Compassionate Use Act; trial court denied suppression and Clark pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine and a short-barreled shotgun and appealed only the suppression ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the warrant affidavit established probable cause to search Clark’s residence | The affidavit showed indicators (odor, equipment, air conditioning usage, informant reliability) making it substantially probable contraband/evidence would be found | Affidavit failed to show cultivation was illegal because it did not investigate or exclude lawful medical use under Prop. 215 / Compassionate Use Act | Warrant affidavit provided probable cause; absence of facts negating medical-use defense does not defeat probable cause and officers had no affirmative duty to investigate medical-use status before seeking a warrant |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Mower, 28 Cal.4th 457 (Cal. 2002) (Compassionate Use Act creates an affirmative defense and limited pretrial remedies but does not grant immunity from arrest or require pre-arrest warrantless investigation of medical-use status)
- People v. Fisher, 96 Cal.App.4th 1147 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (claim of medical authorization is an affirmative defense for the defendant to prove; officers need not abandon or delay a warranted search to investigate such a defense)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (probable cause for a warrant is a practical, common-sense determination of a fair probability that evidence will be found)
- People v. Frank, 38 Cal.3d 711 (Cal. 1985) (affidavit must present facts supporting the affiant’s belief, not mere conclusions)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (U.S. 1984) (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule)