Washington Supreme Court: Pot conviction upheld, but should have been able to present medical exception.
The man took Fry's weed! But see, he tried to tell them it was medical, man. But they weren't diggin it, and got a warrant anyway. Fry's doc said he suffered from, "severe anxiety, rage, & depression related to childhood."
Fry tried to argue that the warrant doesn't hold up because his note negated probable cause. Unfortunately for Fry, the compassionate use defense is just that, an affirmative defense. It doesn't affect PC one bit. The statute says terminal or debilitating illness. Even as amended, his rage didn't qualify.
Harshed his mellow, brah.
But, because this was a 4-4-1 split, we must look to the concurrence and see where the Venn diagram creates new law. Essentially, none is created as to the disqualification of the defense. In fact, there is a 5-4 majority that the defense should have been allowed. However, the concurrence also agrees with the result.
So we have 8-1 for the result of Fry being convicted. But we have 5-4 that Fry should have been allowed to present his defense.
Sanders in his dissent makes a very valid point. The lead opinion would have upheld the warrant on the basis that there were still valid reasons to search, such as determining that the amount of marijuana possessed was over two pounds. However, they only had PC that there was marijuana, not that it was over and above the possessible amount.