## Facts

- Scott Shupe owned and operated a Spokane medical-marijuana dispensary called “Change.”
- Change sold marijuana to people who presented medical-marijuana documentation and kept business records, including copies of customer documentation and receipts listing the date and time of each sale.
- Police investigated Change based on media reports/advertising, surveillance observations (including frequent customer traffic and the smell of marijuana), and observations of Shupe and others carrying duffel bags in and out of the business.
- During the investigation, police conducted a traffic stop of a person who reported buying marijuana at Change and produced a receipt reflecting the purchase.
- Police obtained and executed search warrants connected to the investigation and seized marijuana and related evidence used in the prosecution.
- Shupe was charged with manufacture of a controlled substance (marijuana), possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, and delivery of a controlled substance.
- At trial, Shupe did not dispute that he possessed, delivered, and manufactured marijuana; he contended the conduct was authorized by Washington’s Medical Use of Marijuana Act (MUMA), chapter 69.51A RCW, because he qualified as a “designated provider.”
- Under former RCW 69.51A.010, a “designated provider” had to be the provider to “only one patient at any one time.”
- Shupe testified he sold marijuana to only one patient at a time, pointing to the dispensary’s time-stamped receipts as support.
- The State argued Shupe could not qualify as a designated provider because he served numerous customers, which the State maintained violated the “only one patient” requirement.
- Shupe was convicted and appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the search-warrant affidavits established probable cause when they described marijuana-related activity but did not address the defendant’s asserted authorization under the MUMA.
2. Whether former RCW 69.51A.010’s requirement that a designated provider serve “only one patient at any one time” bars sequential, one-at-a-time transactions with different qualifying patients, and whether Shupe made a sufficient showing of designated-provider status.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed Shupe’s felony marijuana convictions.
- The court concluded that the warrant materials and the trial record did not meaningfully address or negate Shupe’s showing that his possession and dispensing activity was claimed to be authorized by the MUMA.
- Interpreting former RCW 69.51A.010, the court read “only one patient at any one time” as a time-and-transaction limitation (one patient per interaction) rather than a requirement that a provider serve only a single patient as an exclusive, ongoing relationship.
- Because the State did not rebut Shupe’s evidence supporting his designated-provider theory and the case was prosecuted without adequately addressing the asserted statutory authorization, the convictions could not stand.

## Legal Principles

- Probable cause for a search warrant requires facts supporting a reasonable inference that criminal activity is occurring and that evidence of that crime will be found in the place to be searched.
- When observed conduct may fall within a statutory authorization (such as activity claimed to be permitted by the MUMA), the probable-cause showing must address why the conduct is likely outside that authorization; evidence of marijuana activity alone may be insufficient if the law provides an asserted lawful basis.
- In construing former RCW 69.51A.010, the phrase “only one patient at any one time” is read in its ordinary sense as a limitation tied to timing—serving one patient during a given transaction—rather than a permanent limitation to a single patient.
- A defendant may support a statutory medical-marijuana defense by producing evidence consistent with the statutory elements (including documentation and transaction records), after which the State must contest that showing with evidence or legal argument consistent with the statute’s meaning.

## Conclusion

Washington v. Shupe reversed Shupe’s marijuana convictions because the State’s warrant showing and prosecution did not adequately address his claimed authorization under the MUMA, and the court construed the “only one patient at any one time” requirement to permit sequential one-on-one dispensing transactions rather than restricting a provider to a single patient in total.


Washington v. Shupe, 289 P.3d 741, 172 Wash. App. 341 (2012)