## Facts

- Police received information that Jason and Tina Fry’s residence contained a marijuana growing operation.
- On December 20, 2004, officers approached the home and smelled burning marijuana; when Fry opened the door, the odor became stronger.
- Fry stated he had a “legal prescription for marijuana” and insisted officers obtain a warrant to search.
- Tina Fry produced documents labeled a medical-marijuana authorization listing Jason Fry’s condition as severe anxiety, rage, and depression related to childhood.
- Officers obtained a telephonic search warrant and executed it at the home.
- The search yielded marijuana plants, growing equipment, paraphernalia, scales, and approximately 911 grams of marijuana.
- Fry was charged with unlawful possession of marijuana; he moved to suppress the seized evidence and sought to present a medical-marijuana “compassionate use” affirmative defense under former RCW 69.51A.040.
- The trial court denied suppression and barred the defense, concluding Fry was not a qualifying patient; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether presentation of a facially valid medical-marijuana authorization negates probable cause and requires suppression of evidence seized under a search warrant.
2. Whether Fry was entitled to present the former RCW 69.51A.040 compassionate-use affirmative defense based on his stated conditions.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court affirmed.
- The court held that a medical-marijuana authorization does not automatically eliminate probable cause or bar obtaining or executing a warrant when other facts support probable cause.
- The court held Fry was not a “qualifying patient” under former RCW 69.51A because his conditions did not meet the statute’s definition of a terminal or debilitating medical condition; he therefore could not present the affirmative defense.
- Because Fry was not a qualifying patient, the court did not decide whether the quantity possessed exceeded the statute’s permitted supply.

## Legal Principles

- Probable cause is assessed under the totality of the circumstances; an asserted medical-marijuana authorization is only one fact in that analysis.
- Washington’s former medical-marijuana statute provided a limited affirmative defense for qualifying patients; it did not legalize marijuana possession or provide immunity from investigation, arrest, or search.
- Officers are not required to accept an authorization document as dispositive of legality, including whether the patient qualifies under the statute or whether the amount possessed is within statutory limits.
- Eligibility for the compassionate-use defense depends on meeting the statute’s defined medical-condition criteria; conditions outside those definitions do not support the defense.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the warranted search and admission of the seized marijuana evidence, ruling that a medical-marijuana authorization does not categorically defeat probable cause, and it affirmed preclusion of the compassionate-use defense because Fry’s conditions did not satisfy the statute’s qualifying-patient requirements.


State v. Fry, 228 P.3d 1 (Wash. 2010)