State of Washington v. Dale Ray Hightower
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED MARCH 13, 2012 In the Office of the Clerk of Court WA State Court of Appeals, Division III IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. DALE RAY HIGHTOWER, Appellant. No. 29567-2-III ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Division Three UNPUBLISHED OPINION Kulik, C.J. A Kennewick police officer detected marijuana odor emanating from Dale Ray Hightower. The officer arrested Mr. Hightower, obtained a warrant, and searched Mr. Hightower s apartment. Mr. Hightower challenges the denial of his motion to suppress by asserting that the officer had insufficient training and experience to detect marijuana odor. But the evidence supports the court s finding that the officer had the requisite training and experience by virtue of his five years as an officer, training in narcotics, and numerous drug investigations. The court s findings support its conclusion that probable cause existed to arrest Mr. Hightower and to support a search warrant. We, therefore, affirm the trial court s denial of the motion to suppress and affirm the convictions for possession of marijuana and possession of cocaine. No. 29567-2-III State v. Hightower FACTS On January 13, 2010, Detective Christopher Slocombe and Detective Marco Monteblanco of the Kennewick Police Department responded to an anonymous tip that marijuana odor was coming from an apartment at 3320 West 9th in Kennewick, Washington. Detective Slocombe determined that the odor was emanating from apartment D 9. As the detectives knocked on the door, Mr. Hightower and a male companion approached the apartment. Detective Slocombe immediately smelled marijuana coming from the men. Mr. Hightower told Detective Slocombe that he lived in the apartment. Detective Slocombe detained Mr. Hightower and read him his Miranda1 rights. Detective Slocombe released the companion after determining that the marijuana smell was particularized to Mr. Hightower. Mr. Hightower admitted to Detective Slocombe that he had marijuana on his person and that he had a bong and paraphernalia in his apartment. One of the detectives removed a small bag of marijuana from Mr. Hightower s pocket. Mr. Hightower refused to consent to a search of his apartment. 1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966). 2 No. 29567-2-III State v. Hightower Detective Slocombe obtained a telephonic warrant to search Mr. Hightower s apartment for narcotics and paraphernalia. As a basis for the warrant, Detective Slocombe told the judge that the smell of marijuana emanated from Mr. Hightower s apartment, and Mr. Hightower admitted possession of marijuana. Detective Slocombe also presented his credentials to the judge. He stated that he had served as a police officer with the Kennewick Police Department since March 2005, that he received training on narcotics investigation while completing his schooling at the Washington State Basic Law Enforcement Academy, and that he participated in numerous narcotics investigations and seizures. Detective Slocombe did not receive training on detecting the odor of marijuana. Upon execution of the warrant, the detectives found marijuana and cocaine in Mr. Hightower s apartment. Mr. Hightower was taken into custody. Prior to trial, Mr. Hightower filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained through the search of his person, contending the evidence was the fruit of an illegal detention. He also filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained through the search of his apartment. Specifically, he claimed that probable cause for the warrant could not be based on Detective Slocombe s detection of a marijuana odor because Detective Slocombe did not receive adequate training in identifying the odor of marijuana. The 3 No. 29567-2-III State v. Hightower court denied the motions and found Mr. Hightower guilty of possession of a controlled substance, cocaine, and possession of marijuana. Mr. Hightower appeals. ANALYSIS In determining whether probable cause to arrest in a narcotics case exists, the court must consider the totality of the facts and circumstances within the officer s knowledge at the time of the arrest. The standard of reasonableness to be applied takes into consideration the special experience and expertise of the arresting officer. State v. Graham, 130 Wn.2d 711, 724, 927 P.2d 227 (1996) (quoting State v. Fore, 56 Wn. App. 339, 343, 783 P.2d 626 (1989)). A lawful arrest is a prerequisite to a lawful search. State v. Grande, 164 Wn.2d 135, 139-40, 187 P.3d 248 (2008). An officer is allowed to make a warrantless arrest if the officer has probable cause to believe a person has committed or is committing a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor, involving . . . the use or possession of cannabis. Id. at 140 (quoting RCW 10.31.100(1)). An officer s statement that he or she detected the smell of marijuana is sufficient to constitute probable cause to search if the officer has training and experience with the smell of marijuana. State v. Cole, 128 Wn.2d 262, 289, 906 P.2d 925 (1995) (citing State 4 No. 29567-2-III State v. Hightower v. Olson, 73 Wn. App. 348, 356, 869 P.2d 110 (1994)). The sense observation must consist of more than personal belief. State v. Johnson, 79 Wn. App. 776, 780, 904 P.2d 1188 (1995). In State v. Compton, 13 Wn. App. 863, 864-65, 538 P.2d 861 (1975), the court decided that the smell of marijuana on Mr. Compton provided the officer with probable cause to arrest Mr. Compton. The court determined that the officer s training and experience qualified him to identify the odor as marijuana and, consequently, to form a reasonable belief that a crime was being committed. Id. The officer received training in the detection of controlled substances, had been on numerous marijuana arrests, and was familiar with the odor associated with marijuana. Id. at 864. In Cole, the court determined that the officer s training and experience in detecting the smell of marijuana was sufficient when the officer had been a . . . [p]olice [o]fficer for over two years, had been involved with marijuana grow operations in that time, and was familiar with the smell of growing marijuana. Cole, 128 Wn.2d at 289. In Johnson, the court determined that a federal agent had sufficient training and experience when the agent had been in law enforcement for approximately eight years, attended several law enforcement academies, participated in police operations targeting marijuana cultivation, and represented that he knew the smell of marijuana through his 5 No. 29567-2-III State v. Hightower training and experience. Johnson, 79 Wn. App. at 781. Here, Detective Slocombe had been a police officer for almost five years and advanced to the rank of detective. He received training in narcotics investigation while at the Washington State Basic Law Enforcement Academy. He also had experience with numerous investigations that involved search warrants and the seizure of drugs. The court s finding that Detective Slocombe by virtue of his training and experience in law enforcement can detect the odor of both burnt and fresh marijuana 2 is supported by the evidence and in turn supports the conclusion that probable cause existed for the arrest and search warrant. We affirm Mr. Hightower s convictions for possession of marijuana and possession of cocaine. A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040. _________________________________ Kulik, C.J. WE CONCUR: 2 Clerk s Papers at 62. 6 No. 29567-2-III State v. Hightower ______________________________ Sweeney, J. _________________________________ Korsmo, J. 7
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
