For the following fact pattern, please provide a thoughtful response identifying the issues, stating the prevailing law and a reasoned conclusion.

Sam Smith has a sophisticated hydroponics marijuanalab that he keeps on his ranch in Montana. His ranch is about 10 acres large, and has many uses but no enclosure to get onto the main property of his 10 acres. He lives in the actual ranch-house. He also has a guest house 100-yards from his front door that he uses as a bed and breakfast. That business has a constant flow of people since it is the top honeymoon destination in Montana. He also leases his 10-acres of land, except his house and the area enclosed therein, to commercial cattle ranchers so their cattle can roam the land. The cattle ranchers have 24-hour access to the property. Sam's hydroponic lab is kept in a warehouse that looks just like a barn, however it has many large windows for ventilation purposes where, if you're on the property, you can see directly into the warehouse. The warehouse is located about 50-feet from the back door of his home. He uses the warehouse regularly and stores lawn and garden tools for his own personal use. The warehouse and Sam's home are enclosed by a 4-foot tall wooden fence.

The DEA and FBI have been following Sam's movements for a while and are highly suspicious that there is drug activity taking place on Sam's ranch. With the cattle rancher's consent the DEA and FBI agents go on to the cattle fields to check out what is going on. The agents observethe warehouse from right outside of the fence in the middle of a Monday and see the hydroponics lab inside. Agents smell an odor of maijuana and hear a hum of a motor, potentially related to a filtration system for the lab. Officers quickly obtain a warrant based on their observations, and give a take-down signal to search and seize the evidence in the warehouse.

Is this evidence admissible in court? What are the legal issues here and the arguments for admission of the evidence? What arguments does Sam have to argue that this was an illegal search and seizure? Who would the court rule in favor of and why?