To access this feature, please Log In or Register for your Casebriefs Account.

Add to Library




Washington v. Shupe

Law Students: Don’t know your Bloomberg Law login? Register here

Brief Fact Summary.

Defendant sells medical marijuana to medical marijuana patients and does not keep a record of the list. The State claims that Defendant is not a designated provider.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

The phrase “only one patient at any one time†means that the designated provider will give individualized care to the patient during the transaction.

Points of Law - Legal Principles in this Case for Law Students.

Probable cause requires a nexus between criminal activity and the item to be seized, and also a nexus between the item to be seized and the place to be searched.

View Full Point of Law

Scott Shupe, along with others, owned and operated Change, a medical marijuana dispensary. Shupe only provides marijuana for one patient at a time and claims he is a designated provider pursuant to RCW 69.51A.010. Additionally, he does not keep records of the other individuals he has provided medical marijuana to.


Whether Shupe, Defendant, is a designated provider per RCW 69.51A.010.


Yes, Shupe, Defendant, is a designated provider per RCW 69.51A.010.


The court notes that the word “at†suggests a sense of immediacy. Additionally, the words “any one time†suggest a transaction. In passing RCW 69.51A.010, the legislature intended to allow the greatest number of qualified patients to receive the medical marijuana treatment that they need. Therefore, the phrase “to only one patient at a time†means one transaction after another to ensure that the medical marijuana patient receives individualized care. Here, the state does not assert any evidence to rebut that interpretation to claim that Shupe is not a designated provider.

Create New Group

Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following