STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF WRIGHT

DISTRICT COURT
TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

State of Minnesota,
Plaintiff,
ORDER
vs.
Court File No. 86-CR-17-499
Laura Lynn Bultman,
Defendant.

The above-entitled matter came on for hearing before the Honorable Kathleen A. Mottl,
Judge of District Court, on December 21, 2017, at the Wright County Government Center in
Buffalo, Wright County, Minnesota, upon Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss due to the state’s
inability to prove substance identity and whether it has probable cause to proceed to trial, as well
as other various motions. Paul Engh, Esq. appeared on behalf of Defendant. Defendant appeared
personally. Ryan Garry, Esq. appeared on behalf of Ronald Owens, a co-defendant. Shane
Simonds, Assistant Wright County Attorney, appeared on behalf of the State. For purposes of the
motions and establishing the factual record, the Court incorporates the Findings of Fact from its
August 2, 2017 Order. Prior to the hearing, the State, Defendant Owens, and Defendant Bultman
submitted memorandums of law with their arguments.
Based on the briefs and arguments of the parties, the Court now makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1.

On April 21, 2016, Senior Special Agent Robert Nance and Special Agent Jake May of the

Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension met with officials from the Minnesota Department
of Health’s Office of Medical Cannabis. The officials told them that individuals at Minnesota
Medical Solutions (MMS), a subsidiary of Vireo Health, were potentially involved in diverting a
large amount of THC/CBD concentrated oil from the MMS grow facility located in Otsego, Wright
County, to a “sister” Vireo Health organization in the State of New York in December 2015.
MMS, as well as Vireo Health in New York, used a computer software system called BioTrack to
track the marijuana production. Officials from the Office of Medical Cannabis acquired a
screenshot of a BioTrack entry from Daniel Pella (former Chief Scientific Officer of MMS)

 showing 372.0 grams of “6060 concentrated oil mixed” entered as “outbound” to the Minneapolis
Cannabis Patient Center associated with MMS. This entry was dated December 10, 2015 and was
made by Dr. Laura Lynn Bultman (hereinafter Defendant Bultman) who was MMS’ Chief Medical
Officer. Officials of the Office of Medical Cannabis told SSA Nance and SA May that the Patient
Center can only sell pills and liquid capsules and oil concentrates cannot be processed at the Patient
Center, therefore there would be no reason to send the Patient Center 372.0 grams of oil
concentrate.
2.

SSA Nance and SA May interviewed Daniel Pella. Pella informed the agents that during

the first week of December 2015 he was sent to Vireo Health’s New York facility to oversee the
cultivation of medical marijuana plants. During that time, Pella concluded that three out of the
five plant strains in New York could not produce the correct amount of THC and CBD for medical
marijuana, which in turn may lead to a supply issue in New York. When Pella returned on
December 5, 2015, Defendant Bultman and Robert Shimpa (Chief Operating Officer for MMS),
requested a meeting with Pella in the secure vault of the Otsego grow facility. Defendant Bultman
and Shimpa requested Pella to identify THC oils that would “rescue New York.” Pella identified
four to five jars of concentrated oils. Defendant Bultman informed the group that she would drive
the jars of THC to the New York facility using MMS’ armored vehicle, give the jars to Eric
Greenbaum (lab manager in New York), and make the inventory disappear. Pella informed the
agents that he believed the jars made it to New York as the THC solutions were converted to
capsules and vaporizer cartridges by Mia Vang, A MMS technician. Pella thought that the jars
would have the combined weight of approximately three kilograms.
3.

On May 4, 2016, the Minnesota Department of Health conducted an inspection of MMS’

facility. Megan Thompson (Operations Supervisor – Office of Medical Cannabis) requested an
inventory transfer list covering the dates of December 1, 2015 to December 30, 2015. Defendant
Bultman provided Thompson with a seven page inventory transfer list. In contrast, Brian Harvey,
the lead pharmacist for MMS, provided Thompson with an eight page inventory transfer list. In
comparing the inventory reports, Defendant Bultman’s list did not include outbound entries from
December 15, 2015 to December 17, 2015. A BioTrack inventory report was conducted and
revealed five “outbound” transfers on December 16, 2015 of 1,253.75 grams, 755 grams, 971
grams, 75 grams, and 953 grams of concentrated oils. These outbound transfers were made by
Defendant Bultman. The outbound transfers from December 16, 2015 and the outbound transfer

 from December 10, 2015 had a combined weight of approximately 5.6 kilograms. The BioTrack
did not reveal a destination or vendor listed for the transfers made by Defendant Bultman on
December 6, 2015. According to Thompson, the 5.6 kilograms would be contained in six separate
containers/vials and none of these vials were at the grow facility in Otsego.
4.

On May 19, 2016, Special Agent Rittmiller conducted a search of the MMS Patient Center

pursuant to a search warrant. SA Rittmiller spoke with Mr. Harvey and Kari Sky (a lead
pharmacist for MMS). Mr. Harvey told SA Rittmiller that the only THC oil not in patient dosage
was representative samples of one-half to two milliliters of THC Oil which is used for quality
analysis. Sky confirmed that all of the shipments sent to the dispensary consisted of capsules, oral
solutions, and vaporizer cartridges and that the Patient Center does not have the means to store a
bulk shipment or convert the oil into forms for patients. She stated that if a bulk shipment was
sent, the procedure would be to refuse to accept it.
5.

On May 19, 2016 SSA Nance and SSA May conducted a search pursuant to a warrant of

the grow facility in Otsego. The agents interviewed John Purdes during their search. Mr. Purdes
is a manufacturing technician who converted oil solutions to finished products. Purdes stated that
he was at the New York facility the week before Christmas 2015 to assist converting the oil into
final products. He believed that the oils had been produced in the lab in New York, but observed
that the jars containing the concentrated oils were labeled in the same manner as the jars in
Minnesota are labeled. Defendant Bultman, Shimpa, and Carter (horticulturist/Head Grower for
MMS) were at the New York facility at this time.
6.

On May 25, 2016, SSA Nance and SA May interviewed Ronald Dale Owens (hereinafter

“Defendant Owens”). Defendant Owens was the Chief Security Officer for MMS. Defendant
Owens gave the special agents a pack of documents purporting to show that the 5.6 kilograms of
concentrated oil was transported and destroyed at the Pope/Douglas Solid Waste Management
facility in Alexandria, Minnesota. The paperwork indicated that five boxes of “waste capsules
with residue, waste pipettes with residue, and miscellaneous plastic ampules with residue” were
transported on April 26, 2016 by Defendant Owens and Duane Archie Lindenfelser to the
Pope/Douglas facility. The paperwork did not list any concentrated oils. Defendant Owens stated
that he observed 5.6 kilograms of oil in multiple jars be delivered to the Pope/Douglas facility. On
the paperwork, the total weight to be incinerated was .01. Defendant Owens stated that he and

 Defendant Bultman drove MMS’ armored car to New York in December 2015 to deliver the
vehicle, information technology equipment, and set up the New York dispensaries.
7.

On June 1, 2016, SSA Nance interviewed two Pope/Douglas employees who were present

when the boxes were incinerated on April 26, 2016. Neither employee knew the contents inside
of the boxes.
8.

On June 6, 2016, SSA Nance and SA May interviewed Lindenfelser. Lindenfelser

confirmed that he was with Defendant Owens on the day the boxes were incinerated at the
Pope/Douglas facility. He stated that five or six little boxes were incinerated. Lindenfelser told
the agents that he saw little glass or plastic tubes in the boxes. He stated that the total weight of
the boxes was less than two pounds. 5.6 kilograms equal 12.3 pounds. When the agents asked if
someone said there were twelve to thirteen pounds in the boxes, Lindenfelser replied that “they’re
full of shit.” He stated that the boxes did not weigh that much and the Pope/Douglas facility
employees could not weigh them because they were so light.
9.

SSA Nance extracted data from Kyle Kingsley’s computer and Shimpa’s computer. The

Logs show that Bultman, Shimpa and Owens were at the Ostego grow facility together on
December 5, 2015 and shows that Defendant Bultman and Defendant Owens left one minute apart
from each other on that day. The computer data also revealed a laboratory report from the
Wadsworth Center in New York. The report indicated five oil samples submitted by Defendant
Bultman on December 17, 2017 were of “Vireo Red”, which is the type of product that Pella
identified as what the New York facility needed.
10.

SSA Nance also reviewed data obtained from Defendant Bultman’s computer. This

includes an email exchange between Defendant Bultman and Shimpa that were written on
December 8, 2015. At 11:10 a.m. Defendant Bultman wrote to Shimpa “I am not so happy…all
that crap was sitting in vault…untested d/t laziness…and of all the jars we transported, only ONE
of them is actually red.”
11.

On September 8, 2016, SSA Nance interviewed Pella. Pella told the agent that Vang and

Evian Rave had mislabeled some of the jars as “red” at the grow facility in Ostego rather than
“green.”
12.

SSA Nance compared a BioTrack spreadsheet generated by Vang on December 8, 2015.

The first four digits associated with the six outbound oil solutions listed by Defendant Bultman in

 BioTrack matched the first four digits of each oil on Vang’s spreadsheet. They also had similar
names. Vang’s spreadsheet showed that only one of the oil was considered “red.”
13.

Defendant Bultman was charged with two counts: 1) Medical Cannabis – Intentionally

transfer medical cannabis to person other than allowed by law in violation of Minnesota Statute
152.33.1 and 2) Aid and Abet medical cannabis – Intentionally transfer medical cannabis to person
other than allowed in violation of Minnesota Statute 152.33.1 with reference to 609.05.1.
14.

The State concedes that the cannabis oil was never received by the State and the oil cannot

be tested. The issue for the Court is whether without the oil being tested does the State has probable
cause to proceed to trial.
Based on the previous Findings of Fact, the Court now makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1.

Minnesota Statute §152.33 states that “A manufacturer or an agent of a manufacturer who

intentionally transfers medical cannabis to a person other than a patient, designated caregiver or,
if listed on the registry verification, a parent or legal guardian of a patient is guilty of a felony
punishable by imprisonment for not more than two years or by payment of a fine of not more than
$3,000 or both.” Id (emphasis added).
2.

“The court must determine whether probable cause exists to believe that an offense has

been committed and that the defendant committed it.” Minn. R. Crim. P. 11.04, subd. 1(a). “[T]he
test of probable cause is whether the evidence worthy of consideration . . . brings the charge
against the [defendant] within reasonable probability.” State v. Koenig, 666 N.W.2d 366, 372
(Minn. 2003) (first alteration in original) (quoting State v. Florence, 239 N.W.2d 892, 896 (Minn.
1976)). However, a showing of probable cause does not require the same quantum of evidence as
is required to convict. See State v. Knoch, 781 N.W.2d 170, 177 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010) (explaining
that to find probable cause, “[i]t is not necessary for the state to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond
a reasonable doubt”). Additionally, at the omnibus hearing stage, a court is required “to view the
evidence and all resulting inferences in favor of the State.” State v. Peck, 773 N.W.2d 768, 770 n.
1 (Minn. 2009) (citations omitted). In evaluating probable cause, “the trial court is to not invade
the province of the jury.” State v. Trei, 625 N.W.2d 595, 598 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001). “A person
may be charged with a crime only where there is probable cause to believe that the person is guilty
– that is, where facts have been submitted to the district court showing a reasonable probability

 that the person committed the crime.” State v. Lopez, 778 N.W.2d 700, 703 (Minn. 2010) (citing
Minn. R. Crim. P. 2.01; State v. Steinbuch, 514 N.W.2d 793, 798 (Minn. 1994) (citing State v.
Florence, 306 Minn. 442, 239 N.W.2d 892, 896 (1976))).
3.

“A motion to dismiss for lack of probable cause should be denied where ‘the facts

appearing in the record, including reliable hearsay, would preclude the granting of a motion for a
directed verdict of acquittal if proved at trial.’” Id. at 703 – 04 (quoting Florence, 239 N.W.2d at
903). “In other words, if the facts before the district court ‘present a fact question for the jury’s
determination’ on each element of the crime charged, the charge will not be dismissed for lack of
probable cause.” Id. (citing see State v. Slaughter, 691 N.W.2d 70, 74 – 75 (Minn. 2005).
4.

Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure 9.01 allows a Defendant the right to have an expert

examine, inspect, or test physical evidence in the possession of the prosecution. Id. Both sides
acknowledge that the State is not in possession and has never been in possession of the cannabis
oil in question.
5.

In State v. Vail, a post-conviction order, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that the state

must “establish beyond a reasonable doubt the generic identity of the plant substance at issue.”
274 N.W.2d 127, 132 (Minn. 1979). The Court stated that there is not a prescribed minimum
evidentiary requirement in identification cases, rather the sufficiency of the evidence needs to be
established on a “case-by-case basis.” Id. at 134. The Court also states that Minnesota law requires
proof of the actual identity of the substance, and the defendant’s belief is not sufficient. Id. The
Vail court found that while the substance was in the state’s possession, it failed to use adequate
procedures to scientifically test the substance. See also State v. Robinson, 571 N.W.2d 336 (Minn.
1994).
6.

When direct evidence is not available, a conviction based on circumstantial evidence can

be “entitled to the same weight as direct evidence.” State v. Bauer, 598 N.W.2d 352, 270 (Minn.
1999).
7.

The Minnesota Supreme Court held that a state may prove weight or existence of a

controlled substance based solely on circumstantial evidence. State v. Olhausen, 681 N.W.2d 21
(Minn. 2004). In Olhausen, the defendant discarded the alleged controlled substance, preventing
the state from performing scientific tests. The Olhausen court distinguished itself from the Vail
and Robinson cases, because in those instances the state was in possession of the entire amount of
controlled substance but failed to use adequate procedures. The Minnesota Supreme Court stated

 in Olhausen, that “here, respondent discarded the alleged controlled substance, thereby preventing
the state from performing scientific tests. It was respondent, not the state, who prevented more
testing.” Id at 28.
8.

Here, the cannabis oil was never in the State’s possession or control. Defendants Bultman

and Owens attempt to argue that since they did not personally discard the substance, their cases
should be distinguished from Olhausen. The Olhausen court does not hold that the State may only
rely on circumstantial evidence in cases where the defendant intentionally destroys the substance.
Rather, the Court points out that the state may rely on circumstantial evidence when the substance
was never in its possession to test and not due to the state’s own fault. There is no requirement
from the Olhausen court that in order to prove identity by circumstantial evidence, the defendant
must intentionally destroy the evidence. Viewing the inferences in favor of the State, this Court
concludes that there is a reasonable probability that the cannabis oil was “discarded” by Vireo
Health New York whether though conversion/sale of the oil or destruction of the actual product.
Defendant Owens contends in his brief that any “unavailability of the alleged substance came from
the routine use, sale, or destruction of the cannabis oil in normal business practices.” Therefore, it
was never in the State’s control for testing and it was not the State’s fault it was unable to test.
While the substance was likely not personally destroyed by Defendants Bultman or Owens, the
substance was likely destroyed through normal business practice especially given the lapse of time
between the alleged shipment and the investigation. Similar to Olhausen, Defendant’s action of
transporting the oil to the New York facility placed it in the situation where the substance was out
of the control of the State permanently. The Court believes that Olhausen’s holding applies and
that circumstantial evidence may be used to determine the identity of the substance.
9.

Using circumstantial evidence and viewing it in the light most favorable to the State, there

is sufficient probable cause to establish the identity of the substance to be cannabis oil. For
example, the evidence and resulting inferences that establish the material to be cannabis oil are:
(1) the BioTrack entry shows that medical cannabis oil was transported to the Patient Center which
never received the oil; (2) Pella’s statements that he was instructed to determine viable THC oil to
“rescue New York”, that he did identify cannabis oil, and these oils were driven to the New York
facility; (3) Defendant Bultman’s inventory report did not include outbound entries from
December 15, 2015 to December 17, 2015, however, MMS’ lead pharmacist did include entries
from those dates; (4) Mr. Purdue’s statements that the cannabis oil received by the New York was

 labeled in the same manner as the Minnesota facility and not the same as oil in New york; (5) the
difference in weight of the destructed materials in the Pope/Douglas facility (Defendant Owens
stating the materials were roughly six pounds and the Pop/Douglas facility not being able to
register a weight); (6) the laboratory report from the Wadsworth Center in New York that indicated
five cannabis oil samples of “Vireo Red” was submitted by Defendant Bultman on December 17,
2015; (7) the email exchange where Bultman stated “I am not so happy…all that crap was sitting
in vault…untested d/t laziness…and of all the jars we transported, only ONE of them is actually
red.” The circumstantial evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the State shows within a
reasonable probability that the material transported was cannabis oil. Additionally, the State is
not only relying on Defendant’s belief of the nature of the material, rather several pieces of
circumstantial evidence that taken as a whole would identify the substance as cannabis oil.
10.

Similar to Olhausen, the State may use circumstantial evidence to prove the identity of a

substance when the alleged substance is discarded. The evidence, especially when viewed in the
light most favorable to the State, demonstrates that the transported material was cannabis oils. The
fact-finder, whether Jury or Judge, is the appropriate individual to determine whether the State has
proven beyond a reasonable doubt whether the material transported was cannabis oil at the trial
stage. See Olhausen, Id. at 26.
Based on the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Court now makes the
following:
ORDER
1. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for failure to produce the substance for testing is DENIED.
2. Defendants request for information regarding Daniel Pella’s academic and marriage record is
DENIED due to unsubstantiated claims. 1
3. The State has previously provided information as to any promises of immunity for Mr. Pella
on the record at the December 21, 2017 hearing.
4. The State shall provide information to the Defendants regarding any sanctions imposed upon
BCA agents or the reasons for declination of sanctions by the BCA within thirty (30) days of
Entry of this Order.

1

Defendant Bultman and Defendant Owens’ claims about Mr. Pella’s marriage and academic record are
unsubstantiated. The Defendants have not provided evidence to substantiate these claims, and the Court is
concerned about a fishing expedition.

 5. The State shall provide Defendants with the Tennessen notices offered and given to Vireo
employees in April 2015 by investigators of the Minnesota Department of Health within
fourteen (14) days of Entry of this Order.
6. Court Administration shall set this matter for a continued pretrial.

Mottl, Kathleen
(Judge)
2018.02.16 13:26:44
Honorable Kathleen -06'00'
A. Mottl
BY THE COURT

Dated: February 16, 2018

Judge of District Court