Here is how growers REALLY TRULY got busted (in California):
People v. Fang (2011; snitch + smell + stupidity = bust)
San Francisco cop received an anonymous letter regarding the possible cultivation of marijuana inside a residence. The cop went to the residence and, while standing on a public sidewalk, saw that the upper and lower level windows on the west side of the residence were covered and there was condensation on the inside of a window. When he walked up a walkway, he smelled the distinct odor of marijuana emanating from the residence. A search warrant revealed 22 pounds of processed marijuana and 800 marijuana plants, six-gallon tubs of plant nutrients, numerous high wattage light bulbs, a commercial-size electrical fan, a digital scale, a bypassed electric meter,...Fang pleaded guilty to theft of utility services
Barnett v. State Farm General Ins. Co. (2011; snitch + outdoor grow = bust)
Barnet made a claim for theft against his homeowners policy after police seized marijuana at his home pursuant to a search warrant(!) (did not constitute a theft within coverage of homeowner's insurance policy, btw). Costa Mesa police office prepared the statement of probable cause after receiving a tip about the extent of Barnett's outdoor marijuana cultivation, confirmed by a police helicopter overflight that detected about a dozen plants.
People v. Tu (bad luck = bust)
2009: Mr. Tu (the defendant) was convicted of cultivating marijuana and placed on probation for three years after commercial property manager received a telephone call from the tenant reporting water pouring into warehouse from underneath a wall. Property manager investigated and discovered this big old greenhouse that somebody had built in that warehouse area. The greenhouse was full of 145 marijuana plants ... about four-feet high (the source of the water was a broken copper pipe that served the toilet).
People v. Reyes (outdoor grow)
(Probably acting on a tip) a police officer observed a three foot tall marijuana plant growing in a backyard; the plant appeared to be a well maintained.
People v. Urry (snitch + smell = bust)
Acting on a tip from a confidential informant who claimed to have smelled pot, narcotics investigators smelled marijuana growing in a barn from a distance of 35 to 40 yards away.
People v. Gasper (snitch + smell = bust)
An unnamed citizen reported that defendant might be growing marijuana, saw defendant's electrical meter spinning rapidly, and heard a fan running upstairs. Two police officers walked by defendant's house and smelled a strong odor of marijuana.
People v. Bower (snitch + carelessness = bust)
2004. Bower was taking care of a neighbors empty house. A concerned citizen reported to police that she had observed marijuana plants growing inside the abandoned house by looking through an exterior window. Upon investigation, a police officer saw three dead marijuana plants in the backyard. The officer then went to Bowers residence where he first smelled the odor of marijuana coming from the house, and then observed three plants growing in the backyard and four plants growing on the upstairs balcony.
People v. Parra (carelessness)
2006. Parras friend was accidently shot and killed in Parras backyard; it was discovered during the resulting investigation that marijuana was being cultivated.
People v. Williams (outdoor)
2007. Sheriff's helicopter spotted a marijuana grow- 400 plants- in the Los Padres Forest in northern Santa Barbara County. Deputies staked it out, and caught Williams riding a motorcycle and carrying a backpack full of gardening gear at 5:30 a.m. Evidence at the outdoor grow operation matched Williams personal property and vice versa. Threatened with a search warrant, Williams gave permission to search his house, where police discovered 90 more plants. Williams was required to serve 365 days in the county jail as a condition of an additional sentence of probation.
People v. Mineo (snitch + electric company records = bust)
2003. Detective received on information from confidential informant (CI) who identified a Mr. Holst and told about a large ongoing marijuana cultivation operation in a warehouse. Detective identified the location of the warehouse through electric company subscriber records, and went to the address. He observed that there were no windows, there was no business name attached to the locked door, and there was also a mechanical humming noise coming from inside the warehouse, which sounded like the noise of fans. The cop obtained criminal history records for Mineo, which showed that Mineo had been previously convicted of cultivating marijuana. Detective also obtained, through service of a separate search warrant on the utility provider, the power service records for the warehouse space. The utility usage for a six month period for the uninhabited storage space, as reflected in the utility billing records, was enormous. The court noted that a separate search warrant is NOT necessary to obtain utility records from PG & E (the Calif. electric company) - note, however, that the electric company did not voluntarily give cops this information. This information was all then used to obtain a search warrant. Inside the 1,500 square foot space the officers found more than 400 mature marijuana plants, another 400 small clone plants, lights, a watering system, fans, humidifiers, and a sophisticated ventilation system. The officers also found several pounds of marijuana hanging to dry. Mineo claimed that he sold the marijuana to cannabis clubs in the Bay Area, and that the sale of the marijuana would yield about $4,000 per pound. A search of Mineos residence yielded 40 more marijuana plants in the basement, kitchen, and outside the residence. They also found a revolver (Mineo was a convicted felon). On March 17, 2005, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed appellants on probation. Mineo was required to serve 120 days in county jail as a condition of probation.
People v. Oltman (Greenhouse visible from the air)
2001. Deputies were conducting aerial surveillance in the North San Juan area while flying in excess of 1,000 feet above ground. They observed vegetation growing inside two hothouse structures. The vegetation had a distinct green shimmering fluorescent type color that the deputies knew from experience was marijuana. During the motion to supress the search warrant, the Defendant submitted the declaration of Christopher Conrad, a marijuana researcher who had authored two books on the subject and had qualified as an expert on marijuana in more than 20 California county courts and in one federal district court. Conrad's declaration stated that numerous other green plants, including tomato plants, were similar in color to marijuana, and that no single and consistent variation of the color green described all marijuana plants. The California court upheld the validity of the search warrant, reasoning that the officers were allowed to use their experience in marijuana detection and their common sense to form their opinions.
People v. Thompson
2001. Affidavits in support of the search warrant recited that the investigating officer received information from a citizen informant, referred to as CI# 1, of a large marijuana grow in a large barn structure at a specified address. CI# 1 was described in the affidavit as a neighbor who smelled a strong odor of growing marijuana and not burning marijuana coming from the barn every three months. According to CI# 1, the smell goes away after the third month and three months later the strong smell returns. CI# 1 asserted that the resident of the property harvests the marijuana every three months. The investigating officer obtained warrants for PG & E records for two units of similar size at that address. The records for the front unit indicated use of electricity from January to August of 2001 ranged between $300 and $1000; in contrast, the range of electricity used during the same months for the second unit that is not involved and no criminal activity is suspected, was between $20 and $50.
People v. Sivichith (very clever gro op.! READ THIS even though we are not able to tell how they got caught.)
2000. Narcotics officers executed a search warrant on a piece of rural property in Fresno County. The property is a parcel of land covering about 13 acres. Officers found approximately 1,600 marijuana plants. The plants had been split in fourths when small and bent or broken so that they grew along the ground in a spider-like manner. The marijuana was interplanted with, and hidden from view among, bitter melon vines, lemon grass and a vine-like plant called opo. The amount of dried marijuana the plants would have produced at maturity was estimated at about 8,000 pounds. Sivichiths girlfriend was caught entering the property and pleaded guilty, but Sivichith beat the rap (even though his personal property was found in the house on the land). Check the language of the Court: Cultivation of marijuana is essentially a hands-on crime that requires a showing of some participation in the growth harvest or processing of marijuana or a showing of facts from which such participation logically may be inferred. For example, officers observation of marijuana plants growing on sundeck of residence owned or rented by defendants was sufficient evidence to sustain conviction for cultivation. However, in this case, no evidence put Sivichith in the field with the marijuana, or indicate that he had dominion or control over the crops. Simple presence on the property or cohabitation are not facts from which an inference of either cultivation activity or dominion or control over the crop logically may be made. Evidence of ownership and presence on the property not sufficient as a matter of law to establish probable cause for charge of cultivation. In other words, lock the door to the grow room and do not carry the key with you - hide it instead. Without the key to the locked grow room (an no other evidence whatsoever), one could plausibly deny dominion over the crop ... uh, like, perhaps blame it on the kids babysitter????
