State Of Washington, Petitioner/cross Resp App v. Nicholas Longo, Respondent/cross, 70523-7

Bellingham police executed a search warrant at Longo's home and found 180 marijuana plants in a sophisticated grow operation plus drugs and related paraphernalia.
The City pursued civil forfeiture of seized money; Longo challenged the suppression of evidence in both civil and criminal proceedings.
District court granted Longo’s suppression motion and dismissed the civil forfeiture action (January 18, 2013); City abandoned its appeal, finalizing the dismissal.
Superior Court later granted Longo’s motion to suppress in the criminal case on collateral estoppel grounds, noting it would have rejected the probable cause argument.
State appealed collateral estoppel ruling and Longo cross-appealed on probable cause, with a stay request denied; the Court reverses and remands.
The opinion ultimately holds collateral estoppel does not bar the criminal prosecution; discusses MUCA-related probable cause and stays for cross-appeal, remanding for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether collateral estoppel bars the criminal prosecution.	State argues estoppel applies if elements met and no injustice; in privity, finality achieved.	Longo contends no privity and public policy against using forfeiture rulings to preclude criminal prosecutions.	Collateral estoppel does not apply to bar the criminal prosecution.
Whether the State needed probable cause that Longo’s marijuana growth violated MUCA.	Longo would rely on MUCA to challenge warrant; argues insufficient probable cause.	State contends MUCA clarifications affect required probable cause.	Court rejects need for probabilistic showing of MUCA violation; cites Reis and Ellis.

State v. Barnes, 85 Wn. App. 638 (1997) (collateral estoppel considerations in criminal-forfeiture context; public policy concerns)
Christensen v. Grant Cnty. Hosp. Dist. No. 1, 152 Wn.2d 299 (2004) (elements for collateral estoppel; final judgment on the merits; privity; no injustice)
Barlindal v. City of Bonney Lake, 84 Wn. App. 135 (1996) (privity and joint operation factors; applicability to forfeiture and criminal actions)
State v. Vasquez, 148 Wn.2d 303 (2002) (administrative context; public policy against collateral estoppel in certain proceedings)
State v. Williams, 132 Wn.2d 248 (1997) (welfare/administrative contexts; collateral estoppel considerations)
State v. Cleveland, 58 Wn. App. 634 (1990) (dependency/administrative contexts; cautions on estoppel)
State v. Reis, 180 Wn. App. 438 (2014) (probable cause standard relating to MUCA)
State v. Ellis, 178 Wn. App. 801 (2014) (MUCA-related probable cause guidance)