State Of Washington, V. Trang My Le
564 P.3d 1019
Wash. Ct. App.2025Background
- Law enforcement in Thurston County began investigating suspected illegal marijuana grow operations at four properties based on an anonymous tip in late 2017.
- Investigators gathered evidence including surveillance of suspicious vehicle movements, high energy usage at the properties, registration of utility accounts under unrelated names, and no reported income for the main suspects despite significant spending.
- Officers detected the odor of fresh marijuana at two of the four properties, further supporting the suspicion of illegal activity.
- A single affidavit outlining the collective facts was used to secure search warrants for the properties; over 1,000 marijuana plants and related equipment were found during searches.
- Trang My Le and four co-defendants were charged with possession and manufacturing of a controlled substance, with aggravating factors; Le moved to suppress evidence, claiming the warrant lacked probable cause and failed to address possible legal grow status.
- The trial court denied the suppression motions, and Le was found guilty at jury trial; she appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the search warrant affidavit established probable cause for all properties | Affidavit describes innocent conduct; no probable cause for search | Totality of facts shows probable cause for all four properties | Affidavit established probable cause for all properties |
| Whether detection of marijuana odor at only two properties negated probable cause for the other two | Odor only present at two, so probable cause lacking for remaining properties | All facts, including links between properties, support probable cause for all locations | Collective facts supported searches of all properties |
| Whether law enforcement must check and confirm the legal registration status of marijuana grows in warrant affidavits | Failure to confirm lack of registration means facts equally consistent with lawful conduct | No legal requirement to check registry or confirm lack of license for probable cause | No requirement to check legal status in affidavit |
| If omission of registration details negates probable cause | Affidavit is insufficient without disproving legality | Statute places burden on defense for exemptions, not on state in search context | Affidavit need not confirm absence of state registration |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Neth, 165 Wn.2d 177 (deference to issuing judge's determination of probable cause for search warrant)
- State v. Chenoweth, 160 Wn.2d 454 (presumption of validity for search warrants and commonsense review standard)
- State v. Garcia, 63 Wn. App. 868 (aggregate facts can establish probable cause even if individual elements do not)
- State v. Scherf, 192 Wn.2d 350 (reasonable inferences from affidavit facts support probable cause determination)
- State v. Betancourth, 190 Wn.2d 357 (evidence seized without probable cause must be suppressed)