The deputy showed up and, because Yarton said it was okay, searched the property.  The deputy told the court that he was under the impression that Yarton could allow the search of the tenant’s property, because he had unlimited access to maintain the property and to store things in the garage.

That night the landlord and the deputy  went to the property.  The shed was locked, but they discovered electrical lines and a garden hose leading into it.  The deputy smelled marijuana, too, but thought it was coming from the mobile home.  He looked into the back window of the mobile home, then walked around to the front door and knocked.  As he shined his flashlight and peered in the window in the front door, he could see marijuana and drug paraphernalia.

Two men showed up at that point, bolt cutters in hand, saying they were looking for Rose.  Naturally the deputy was suspicous, so he read the two their Miranda rights.  They waived them and told the deputy they were planning to break into Rose’s home and steal his marijuana crop.

As a result of all these observations, the deputy got a search warrant.  The police discovered 14 pounds of marijuana and evidence that Rose had been growing it.

Rose was charged with possession of marijuana with intent to manufacture or deliver.  The court, however, granted Roses’s motion to suppress the evidence.  The state appealed.   Even so, the state lost and the evidence remained suppressed.

The court ruled that Rose had a reasonable expectation of privacy.  Yarton did not have authority to consent to a search.  Rose had paid the November rent and it had been accepted by Yarton, so he had possession of the property until the end of the month.  Although Yarton had leave to enter the property for limited purposes, Rose still had exclusive possession.

As a result, the deputy had no business entering the premises without Rose’s permission.  So his search, the warrant and the seizure of the evidence were illegal.  The deputy’s belief that Yarton could consent to the search was not a valid excuse.  The court would have needed more evidence to support the search warrant than the deputy’s and Yarton’s belief that they smelled marijuana.

What should have happened

The landlord (Yarton) was the cause of the problem.  He misled the deputy, who was probably no great shakes as far as the Landlord/Tenant Law is concerned, and that resulted in a botched chain of events.

Remember, you, as a landlord, have no right to enter the property of your tenant without the tenant’s consent or adequate notice as provided in the Landlord/Tenant Law of your state.  The law in the State of Washington, where this all took place, is abundantly clear on that matter.

What the landlord should have done is to tell the deputy his suspicions and let the deputy do his job.  That’s what they are paid to do.  Possibly Yarton did not know his responsibilities under the law  (I checked, he’s not a subscriber to any of my publications).  It behooves landlords to stay informed as to their rights and responsibilities.  In fact, the law in the state of Washington provides that the landlord can be fined $100 for each time he enters the property of  a tenant illegally, after one written notice.

 Because of the landlord’s ignorance and his misleading the deputy, a criminal is still on the streets.

In any event, know the limitations set forth in your lease regarding access to the property.  It could save you money and headaches.