Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Thursday, October 28, 2010

Warrant Shows Cops Knew Pot Grow Was Tiny, No Other Crimes Involved, When Deciding to Conduct Armed Raid for Two Legal Plants

Posted by on Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 9:19 AM

Posted yesterday evening and moved up.

MP5 Submachine gun: Similar to the guns used in the raid
  • MP5 Submachine gun: Similar to the guns used in the raid
The Stranger has obtained a copy of the search warrant Seattle police used to conduct an raid on Monday—replete with submachine guns, full tactical gear, and a battering ram—on a man who was legally cultivating two marijuana plants for medical reasons. Records filed in King County Superior Court show that police had every indication the grow was small, no evidence that were sales involved, no electricity records that would show a large operation, and no suggestion of any other potentially illegal activity.

The ACLU of Washington is calling the conduct "unacceptable."

The affidavit making the case that there was probable cause for a search was filed by SPD Officer Tyrone Davis, a narcotics detective who has conducted “over 100 buy bust operations." Davis and his sergeant visited the four-plex apartment inhabited by 50-year-old Will Laudanski in Seattle’s Leschi neighborhood on October 13, acting on “a citizen complaint that wished to remain anonymous in police reports,” the warrant says. The citizen, who lived nearby, reported the smell of marijuana coming from the apartment and said there was a fan in a boarded-up window in one corner of the unit. The officers confirmed the boarded up window and the fan during the visit, the affidavit continues, suggesting part of a ventilation system typical of indoor marijuana cultivation. He could also smell marijuana near the apartment’s south window. Upon getting closer, “I could smell this odor even stronger as I placed my nose near the window,” he writes. “It was clear to me that an odor of marijuana was coming from behind that window.”

In other words, SPD had every indication that this was a small garden—it was in an apartment, after all. And the smell was faint enough that the officer “placed [his] nose near the window” to confirm the odor. Large marijuana grows are in houses or warehouses, and often pungent enough to smell distinctly from the street.

Much of the warrant is devoted to pages of boilerplate copy about the items typically found in a grow operation (ventilation, lights, money, etc.); then it includes some more detailed description of the eight-inch fan, the wooden board, and the officers' career familiarity with the smell of pot.

Most remarkable is what the warrant doesn't say. The warrant application reports no follow-up between going to the house on October 13 and applying for the search warrant five days later. Given that marijuana for personal use is the city’s lowest enforcement priority, officers could have invoked state law to request electricity records that would indicate if a large number of lights were being used (which the records wouldn’t have shown), spoken to people in the neighborhood to find out if commercial activity appeared to be underway (which there apparently wasn’t), or checked the house to see if it looked like it was inhabited by a tenant primarily using the property as his home (which he was). All of that would have probably shown this was a low priority investigation involving personal marijuana—certainly not one requiring an armed raid—exactly the type of case that city law says police can ignore without pursuing expensive, laborious enforcement procedures. Officers could have also avoided an armed nighttime raid of the kind that often ends with deadly gunfire. There was no indication of weapons involved; officers could have also knocked on the door and talked to the resident. Instead, they sought a warrant and deployed six to nine officers to break down the man’s door with a battering ram—for two legal pot plants, each only one foot high.

The King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office recommended the warrant. “We approved the search, yes we did,” says King County Prosecuting Attorney’s office chief of staff Ian Goodhew.

He continues: “You could establish probable cause with tons of evidence or just established probable cause. It is a fairly low standard but it’s one that is required for a search warrant.”

Senior Deputy Prosecutor Ellen O’Neill-Stephens, who recommended the search, is the same person who authorized a search on a medical marijuana advocacy group’s office based on an unsubstantiated tip in 2008.

King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg issued a policy in 2008 saying that his office won’t prosecute people for medical marijuana and it supports law enforcement’s “reasonable efforts to carefully and sensitively investigate these [marijuana] cases.” Was this case investigated “carefully and sensitively”?

“I acknowledge that the amount of force used compared what ended up finding can seem out of proportion,” Goodhew says. But he says uncertainty over the law and whether the person is growing for medical purposes or non-medical purposes “can leave law enforcement guessing.” And that requires an investigation—sometimes involving a raid, he says.

The warrant shows no items were seized—meaning there was nothing illegal on the property.

"This is maddening. Is it a case of inadequate training and supervision, or outright disrespect for our laws?" asks ACLU of Washington drug policy director Alison Holcomb. "Either way, it’s unacceptable that this could happen when we have a medical marijuana law, a 'lowest law enforcement priority' ordinance, and written policies calling for 'careful' and 'sensitive' investigation of these cases."

"I haven't been able to sleep for two days," says Laudanski, recounting the trauma of having his door smashed in, dealing with his ransacked home, and being held on the floor by armed police. "That's how this has left me. This should not have to happen to anyone else. I could be dead or in the hospital or permanently injured."

SPD has not responded to a request to comment on the affidavit used to get the search warrant (although yesterday the department acknowledged no crime was committed). Meanwhile, Mayor Mike McGinn has repeatedly insisted that marijuana enforcement is the city's lowest law-enforcement priority. His office has copies of all the records of this case.

McGinn spokesman Aaron Pickus indicates the mayor is out to lunch on this incident. "Now that we have the narrative of the incident and the search warrant, the mayor will discuss with the department about how this incident fits in to our city's policy that marijuana enforcement is our lowest priority," says Pickus.

That's all McGinn's office has to say—they'll be finding out how police justify the behavior. The answer will likely be predictable lines that McGinn has parroted before: Pot is against the law and police have to investigate complaints, so officers have carte blanche to arrest folks for pot, break in their doors, pull guns on them, etc. So far, McGinn seems fine with that.

“I know some people are upset when a case is investigated and turns out to be medical marijuana,” Goodhew continues. “That’s why we think the statue needs a severe overhaul.”

 

Comments (44) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Will in Seattle 1
Obviously they aren't spending enough time giving Tim Eyman tickets for blowing through red lights.

Or going after graffiti taggers who have been marking up art murals around the city.

Methinks the fact they get to keep any assets they seize when they do an MJ bust has a lot to do with why they ignore the LAW.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on October 27, 2010 at 4:45 PM
Joe Szilagyi 2
This still sounds like a total violation of SMC 12A.20.060, which the police MUST obey. Why is there no mention by the police or Satterberg of this? King County doesn't set or decide Seattle law. It's already been decided:

"The Seattle Police Department and City Attorney's Office shall make the investigation, arrest and prosecution of marijuana offenses, where the marijuana was intended for adult personal use, the City's lowest law enforcement priority."


Why was officer Tyrone Davis even dispatched? Was there not ***ONE*** single other crime reported that day, week, or preceding year in Seattle that remained 'open' and unresolved? Because every single one of them was legally required to be a priority over Mr. Laundinski's legal medical marijuana.

The fact still remains as well that Laudinski had his rights violated. When will the Seattle Police Department be issuing an apology to him and compensating him for the damages suffered? Or does he have to sue for a civil rights violation over an illegal home invasion?
Posted by Joe Szilagyi http://twitter.com/joeszi on October 27, 2010 at 4:45 PM
wisepunk 3
Why were the city police going to the county prosecutor for a warrant? Wouldn't they have to go through Pete Holmes office as a matter of the proper chain of command? Do the city cops work for the county now?

Posted by wisepunk on October 27, 2010 at 4:53 PM
OuterCow 4
@2 Right on, Joe.

@3 I'd like to know the answer to that as well.
Posted by OuterCow on October 27, 2010 at 5:05 PM
5
They can start with an apology and sending over a handyman to fix the fucking door.
Posted by Bean on October 27, 2010 at 5:15 PM
Fnarf 6
@3, @4: the county prosecutes all criminal cases. The City Attorney's office only does traffic tickets and stuff. There would be no reason to talk to Holmes; cops do all their work with prosecutors.
Posted by Fnarf http://www.facebook.com/fnarf on October 27, 2010 at 5:17 PM
Dominic Holden 7
@3) The Seattle City Attorney's Office only handles suspected misdemeanors, which go before the Seattle Municipal Court.

But marijuana cultivation cases, when it's illegal (i.e., non-medical), are felonies, which are handled by the King County Prosecuting Attorney's Office in King County Superior Court.
Posted by Dominic Holden on October 27, 2010 at 5:18 PM
Canuck 8
Wonder how this has affected this poor guy's migraines...?
Posted by Canuck on October 27, 2010 at 5:18 PM
dirac 9
There WAS a crime committed here...the SPD comitted it though.
Posted by dirac on October 27, 2010 at 5:25 PM
10
Mr. Laudanski should be thankful that he didn't have his TV remote control in his hand when they busted down his door. In all likelihood, he would've been shot and killed on the spot.
Posted by Citizen R on October 27, 2010 at 5:28 PM
Fnarf 11
Come on, people. If you really wanted some weed, and YOU had automatic weapons and a battering ram, you'da done the same thing.

This kind of thing is never going away as long as there are multiple conflicting legal positions, meaning "until the feds say so".
Posted by Fnarf http://www.facebook.com/fnarf on October 27, 2010 at 5:32 PM
12
As I said today to Dominic, I'm especially pissed about this due to the fact that I tried for TWO YEARS to get SPD to investigate the world's most obvious dedicated growhouse in my neighborhood and they refused. Flat out refused...despite multiple eyewitness evidence of the operation, my going through all the trouble (at the Narcotics Unit's request) to notate every coming and going and license plates of the cars that came and went for weeks. Everyone within 3 houses on either side could smell the damn thing, it reeked so bad.

The hypocrisy really gets my goat. SPD is so full of shit it disgusts me to no end. They clearly broke the law—there is NO JUSTIFICATION for this, Mr. Mayor, so quit hiding and get this thing straight and into their heads once and for all. It is the lowest priority. Go catch someone spray painting graffiti before you start in on your pathetic, tax dollar-wasting drug war!
Posted by mistamatic on October 27, 2010 at 5:56 PM
wisepunk 13
@6 @7, The More you know! (cue rainbow nbc logo)
Posted by wisepunk on October 27, 2010 at 6:03 PM
douchus 14
@12 is a dick.
Posted by douchus on October 27, 2010 at 6:16 PM
Westlake, son! 15
Diaz will be at the Seattle Public Library tomorrow, Oct 28th from 6-7:30pm.
Why don't we all stop by?

http://imgur.com/heykf.jpg
Posted by Westlake, son! on October 27, 2010 at 6:57 PM
Westlake, son! 16
And since @2 has already won the thread...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/danmeth/276…
Posted by Westlake, son! on October 27, 2010 at 7:04 PM
Reverse Polarity 17
The police's justification for a search warrant doesn't even pass the giggle test. One unsubstantiated anonymous citizen complaint? No followup or investigation of any kind other than a sniff? Please. That is such bullshit. What kind of idiot judge grants a warrant for an armed raid on such flimsy evidence?
Posted by Reverse Polarity on October 27, 2010 at 7:40 PM
18
Maybe the cops should quit worrying about weed and do something about all the blacks murdering other blacks.

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/10590…
Posted by Naive White Libtarded Seattle Progressive on October 27, 2010 at 7:57 PM
19
reposted from earlier thread:

Instead of griping here, why not call the Mayor's office and let him know that you think this is bullshit?

Here, I'll help make it easy:

http://www.seattle.gov/mayor/contact.htm

Seattle City Hall is located downtown on Fourth Ave., between Cherry St. and James St.

Send a letter: Mayor's Office, Seattle City Hall 7th floor, 600 Fourth Avenue, P.O. Box 94749, Seattle, WA 98124-4749

Call the Mayor's office: (206) 684-4000
Posted by duncan98117 on October 27, 2010 at 8:39 PM
OuterCow 20
@6 @7 Thanks!

@15 Sounds like a plan.

@16 NICE.
Posted by OuterCow on October 27, 2010 at 8:57 PM
watchout5 21
There's no hope. I know it's not the foot soldiers fault, but this is why so many foot soldiers have PTSD, because they're asked to do absolutely crazy things that they know are wrong. We give giant golden parachutes to the people who ripped off grandma and the lady down the street who doesn't speak english but this is how a hero operating within the law is treated? What do we pay these people for if they don't investigate anything? The smell of pot in seattle, and a fan, could get an entire swat team on you? Where the fuck does it say that in the law?
Posted by watchout5 http://www.overclockeddrama.com on October 27, 2010 at 9:29 PM
DOUG. 22
Please remind me why The Stranger supports King County Prop 1...
Posted by DOUG. http://www.dougsvotersguide.com on October 27, 2010 at 10:32 PM
Max Solomon 23
stop snitchin'
Posted by Max Solomon on October 27, 2010 at 10:59 PM
24
Jesus, I'm glad this guy doesn't have a dog. Because if he did that dog would be dead now, for a couple of plants i.e. absolutely no sensible reason whatsoever.
Posted by JenV on October 27, 2010 at 11:56 PM
mayor 25
I've been growing for about 8 years now (small, about $2,000/mo.), and received a bit of a scare two years ago when two detectives wanted to come inside my house to investigate a complaint.
I stepped outside, closed the door behind me, asked to see their warrant, and haven't been bothered since.
Posted by mayor on October 28, 2010 at 6:11 AM
schmacky 26
The moral of the story is: Given the potential for stupid armed conflict and death, anyone who calls the cops just because of weed is an asshole.
Posted by schmacky on October 28, 2010 at 8:40 AM
aardvark 27
good reporting. keep it up. any other news outlets pick up on this? ...
Posted by aardvark on October 28, 2010 at 9:29 AM
28
Any indication of where the cop placed his nose after he placed it by the window? Back on his face? This is one of the details that makes this whole case smell fishy.
Posted by carnivorous chicken on October 28, 2010 at 9:35 AM
29
@22 Exactly.

Shit like this is one reason I voted no. The fact that Seattle gets screwed by it was another.
Posted by giffy on October 28, 2010 at 9:36 AM
30
@25, now you know how bad it could've been. And it could've been much worse than that, even. This could've had a very tragic end. What incredibly reckless, foolish behavior on the part of law enforcement, all the way up the chain.
Posted by Blech on October 28, 2010 at 9:41 AM
31
Dear Stranger Staff:

If you're going to make an issue out of the type of guns used in this raid, please learn something about guns.

Cops don't use MP5s for raids because they want more firepower (though obviously they don't consider that a bad thing). MP5s use the same 9mm bullets that many handguns use. They don't make bigger holes, and the bullets don't go any deeper than handgun bullets. The reason that cops like to use MP5s in raids is that the accuracy of any firearm using fixed sights is a function of the distance between the front and rear sights -- so an MP5 is basically a much more accurate handgun. They also have better sight apertures than most handguns, so target acquisition is easier, which makes them less likely to shoot the wrong people, or shoot someone by accident. Finally, because of the size and strap structure of an MP5, weapon retention is much easier than with a handgun; if you're walking through a stranger's house with a lot of blind corners, the odds of someone jumping out at you and taking your gun away from you (and using it to shoot cops or bystanders) are much lower with a submachinegun. The point here is that sumachineguns like the MP5 are actually SAFER than handguns in most circumstances.

Finally, the MP5 you have in the photo has an integrated silencer. It probably looks almost nothing like the weapons used by SPD.
Posted by Judah http://www.suoxi.net on October 28, 2010 at 10:05 AM
32
What judge signed the warrant?
Posted by Algernon on October 28, 2010 at 10:09 AM
schmacky 33
Interesting reading, Judah. It misses the point almost entirely, but very interesting nonetheless.
Posted by schmacky on October 28, 2010 at 10:39 AM
34
Schmacky, talking about a side point and missing the point are not the same thing. But I'm sure your friends think you're very smart.
Posted by Judah http://www.suoxi.net on October 28, 2010 at 10:51 AM
Will in Seattle 35
If King County wants Prop 1 to fail - and fail hard - they're doing an excellent job of convincing Seattle voters to cut their funding.

Just sayin'
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on October 28, 2010 at 11:06 AM
36
It's strange is that a warrant was obtained with ZERO evidence of illegal activity. They had evidence of pot smoking yes, but pot smoking, by itself, is no more illegal than driving a car. (Both require a license.) In order to have evidence that ILLEGAL pot possession was taking place, they need evidence that (a) there was pot possession, AND (b) that the person in possession of it does not have a license (for medical purposes). Clearly, the cops only had (a), but not (b).

If the smell of pot by itself is considered probable cause to think that someone is ILLEGALLY in possession of pot, then I suppose:

Seeing someone driving a car is probable cause that they are driving without a license.
Seeing someone inside a house is probable cause that they breaking and entering.
etc. etc.

Quite clearly, the SPD's rule here is: Pot smokers are guilty until proven innocent.
Posted by David Nixon on October 28, 2010 at 11:13 AM
Fifty-Two-Eighty 37
Ah! Sounds like you get it.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty http://www.nra.org on October 28, 2010 at 11:19 AM
schmacky 38
Judah, I was actually complimenting you, albeit indirectly. And I said ALMOST entirely. My friends don't necessarily think I'm smart, but they do credit me for having excellent reading comprehension.

Seriously, I'm just trying to keep the focus on the stupidity of the cops, not the competely tangential issue of Mr. Holden's weapon-related ignorance. You're a gun nut, we get it...good for you.
Posted by schmacky on October 28, 2010 at 11:28 AM
39
@31: I really don't know what your point is. Are you under the impression that most deaths in these B&E raids are due to the police missing? Or do submachine guns somehow aid the police in distinguishing a remote control from a handgun? Perhaps the strap structure has a calming effect, so they're less likely to interpret a turn of the head as intent to kill?
Posted by Ben on October 28, 2010 at 11:42 AM
Cannabis Defense Coalition 40
@36 FTW!

-- 
Phil, CDC member
Posted by Cannabis Defense Coalition http://www.cdc.coop/projects on October 28, 2010 at 12:00 PM
biffster 41
i wonder what kind of ties the anonymous complainant has with the dept.
Posted by biffster on October 28, 2010 at 12:04 PM
More, I Say! 42
Off topic completely, but can we ban #18? It's the worst kind of devil's advocate trolling, and brings up the same racist topic in every post.

I beseech thee, Stranger Techies.
Posted by More, I Say! on October 28, 2010 at 12:18 PM
43
@42: I'd actually prefer something like a per-user ignore functionality. If you ban someone, they'll just create a new account. If you allow people to just turn them off like you can turn off unregistered commenters, they'll never actually be sure they're not being heard.

Really, what bother me the most is the word 'libtarded.' Not because it's insulting, but because it's just dumb. It's just smashing two words together like a caveman banging rocks. It's aesthetically offensive to the eye and the ear.
Posted by Ben on October 28, 2010 at 2:12 PM
More, I Say! 44
I wholeheartedly agree....it irritates me every time I see it. And it has a terrible mouth-feel.
Posted by More, I Say! on October 29, 2010 at 3:07 PM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!


All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy