Summary
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that a search warrant affidavit established probable cause to search a commercial warehouse for evidence of illegal marijuana cultivation. Although the odor of unburnt marijuana alone does not establish probable cause, the odor combined with the warehouse's characteristics, ventilation modifications, lack of cultivation licenses, surveillance cameras, suspicious vehicles, and related criminal histories supported the warrant. The matter was remanded to the District Court.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the reported question under Mass. R. Crim. P. 34 was properly before the Supreme Judicial Court.
- Whether the search warrant affidavit established probable cause to search the commercial warehouse for evidence of illegal marijuana cultivation.
- Whether the odor of unburnt marijuana could be considered as one factor in the totality-of-the-circumstances probable-cause analysis after Massachusetts legalized or decriminalized certain marijuana possession and cultivation.
Holdings
- The reported question was not properly reported because it was a hypothetical question that extracted selected facts rather than presenting the legal question arising from the complete warrant affidavit and the pending suppression motion.
- The affidavit established probable cause to search the warehouse for evidence of illegal marijuana cultivation.
- The odor of unburnt marijuana is not categorically excluded from the probable-cause analysis; it may be considered as one factor in the totality of the circumstances, but the odor alone does not establish probable cause that a crime is being committed.
Key quotations
“The question that the parties asked the judge to report, and that the judge did report to this court, is a hypothetical question; it extracts some of the relevant facts set forth in the warrant affidavit.” (808)
“In these circumstances, the multiple convictions related to marijuana possession and distribution, over a lengthy period, combined with the other evidence, added an additional measure of support to the officers' probable cause calculus.” (812)
“In these circumstances, the multiple convictions related to marijuana possession and distribution, over a lengthy period, combined with the other evidence, added an additional measure of support to the officers' probable cause calculus.” (813)
Factual background
Police observed two vehicles parked after business hours near an isolated, windowless, approximately 11,000-square-foot warehouse with exterior surveillance cameras. They observed blocked ordinary vents, newly mortared PVC exhaust pipes, an apparent break-in, and detected an overwhelming odor of unburnt marijuana coming from inside. The leaseholder and a vehicle owner had prior marijuana-related convictions but no medical-marijuana cultivation authorization, and the warehouse was not a residence eligible for personal cultivation under state law. Execution of the warrant yielded at least fifty pounds of marijuana, cultivation equipment, and currency.
Procedural history
The defendant was arrested and charged with trafficking in fifty pounds or more of marijuana after police executed a warrant and seized at least fifty pounds of marijuana and cultivation equipment from a warehouse. He moved to suppress, arguing that the affidavit failed to establish probable cause because the odor of marijuana could have resulted from lawful possession or cultivation. Before the District Court decided the motion, the parties stipulated to portions of the affidavit and jointly requested a reported question. The Supreme Judicial Court held that the reported question was improperly framed as a hypothetical but reviewed the affidavit de novo and remanded for further proceedings.
Remand instructions
The matter was remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.