State v. Reis, 351 P.3d 127

Background

In 2012 police observed marijuana plants at a Shorewood home, identified the resident as William Reis (through license plate and a 2005 booking photo), and obtained a warrant based on an affidavit describing prior grow operations and observed indicia of cultivation.
Search pursuant to the warrant uncovered evidence of a grow operation (37 plants and ~211 ounces of cannabis); Reis was charged under Washington’s Uniform Controlled Substances Act (chapter 69.50 RCW).
Reis moved to suppress, arguing the 2011 amendments to the Medical Use of Cannabis Act (MUCA, chapter 69.51A RCW) decriminalized medical cannabis use such that probable cause for a search could not exist. Trial court denied suppression; Court of Appeals affirmed.
Key statutory background: 2011 amendments created a registry-based, tiered protection scheme (heightened protections for registered users; affirmative defenses for unregistered users). Section 901 would have created the registry but was vetoed by the governor; references to registration remain in the enacted RCW 69.51A.040.
The central legal question: does RCW 69.51A.040 (as enacted after the veto) decriminalize medical cannabis use so that possession/cultivation is not a crime, or does the statute instead leave only an affirmative defense absent a registry?
The Supreme Court held the statute does not decriminalize medical use because compliance is impossible without the vetoed registry; thus MUCA currently provides only an affirmative defense and does not negate probable cause for the search warrant.

Issues

Issue	Reis's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether RCW 69.51A.040 decriminalizes medical cannabis use as a noncrime	RCW 69.51A.040 says "medical use ... does not constitute a crime," so medical use is lawful and cannot support probable cause	The statute requires compliance with terms (including registration); because the registry was vetoed and cannot be complied with, the statute does not decriminalize use but instead leaves an affirmative defense	Held: RCW 69.51A.040 does not decriminalize medical use absent a registry; it establishes elements for heightened protection but, given the veto, only an affirmative defense is available now
Whether references to the vetoed registry must be ignored so statute is interpreted as decriminalizing use	Reis: the governor’s veto of the registry should mean surviving references are meaningless; interpret statute as decriminalizing use	State: references to registry remain in enacted text and must be given effect; court may not rewrite statute or omit language not itself vetoed	Held: Court must interpret enacted statute as written; it cannot strike or rewrite surviving references—registration requirement remains operative though impossible to satisfy, so affirmative defense framework governs
Whether an affirmative defense undermines probable cause for a search warrant	Reis: if medical use is lawful, probable cause is negated	State: availability of an affirmative defense does not negate probable cause	Held: An affirmative defense does not defeat probable cause; search warrant valid
Whether court may remedy the statutory gap created by the veto	Reis: court should interpret statute to avoid absurd result and treat medical use as lawful	State: judicial modification would usurp legislative power	Held: Court may not rewrite or supply omitted registry; remedy belongs to legislature; must apply statute as enacted

Key Cases Cited

State v. Kurtz, 178 Wn.2d 466 (2013) (discusses whether 2011 amendments made qualifying marijuana use a legal use rather than only an affirmative defense)
State v. Fry, 168 Wn.2d 1 (2010) (availability of an affirmative defense does not negate probable cause for a search warrant)
State v. Martin, 94 Wn.2d 1 (1980) (courts may not read into a statute what the legislature omitted)
Washington Fed. of State Employees v. State, 101 Wn.2d 536 (1984) (addressed effects of veto and treatment of references to vetoed material)
Hallin v. Trent, 94 Wn.2d 671 (1980) (governor acts in legislative capacity when vetoing; vetoed material to be treated as never enacted)