Affidavit for SW for an outdoor grow operation gave PC to search the house by inference. United States v. Hays, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64977 (E.D. Ky. June 24, 2009):<\/p>\n
The affidavit places at least fifty marijuana plants on the property itself, with most of those plants appearing in “close proximity” to the residential shed and a vehicle registered to Defendant. While the affidavit (unhelpfully) does not quantify the precise meaning of “near” or “close proximity,” the affidavit inferentially depicts an integrated tract with landscaping and mowing that extends to the residence. Further, the reference to “close proximity” and triangular points including the garden, the truck, and the residential shed itself fairly place the garden marijuana in the immediate area of the alleged home.<\/p>\n
Further, the marijuana expressly appeared on the defined and targeted property, and the gravel road with the locked gate was the only reasonable access to the property. As such, a natural, suspicious link exists between access to the property’s buildings and access to the property’s marijuana plants. To get to the property, anyone fairly would reach the property only through the same locked gate. The locked nature of the gate indicates that one person controls the property–including an alleged residence and vehicle associated with the purported occupant. See United States v. Lynch, No. 08-0060 SI, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14347, 2009 WL 358266, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2009) (gated entrance indicative of control). Additionally, the manicured nature of the property means that someone actively managed the buildings (one of which apparently is a dwelling) and grounds during the period of marijuana cultivation close to the residential building and behind the barn.<\/p>\n
The affidavit’s reference to the marijuana as more mature than would be expected does create a fair inference that the plants were grown indoors and transplanted. The presence of buildings (at least one of which had electricity) at this site raises a fair suspicion that the buildings would reveal evidence of cultivation. Someone cultivated the fifty+ plants, and the only ingress involved use of the locked gate. The buildings would not necessarily have cultivation-related evidence, but a reasonable basis existed for searching the property, structures included, because of the marijuana on the property.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading