IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA

No. 20–0202 

Submitted March 24, 2021—Filed June 18, 2021 

STATE OF IOWA,

Appellee, 

vs. 

RYAN JOSEPH HAHN,

Appellant. 

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Tamra Roberts 

(motion to suppress) and Patrick A. McElyea (trial and sentencing), 

Judges. 

Defendant challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to 

suppress evidence. AFFIRMED ON CONDITION AND REMANDED WITH 

DIRECTIONS.

McDonald, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Appel, 

Oxley, and McDermott, JJ., joined. Christensen, C.J., filed a dissenting 

opinion, in which Waterman and Mansfield, JJ., joined. 

Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Josh Irwin, 

Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant. 

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Louis S. Sloven, Assistant 

Attorney General, Michael J. Walton, County Attorney, and Jonathan 

Noble, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee. 
2 

McDONALD, Justice.

Ryan Hahn was convicted of possession of marijuana with intent to 

deliver, in violation of Iowa Code section 124.401(1)(d) (2018); failure to 

affix a drug tax stamp, in violation of Iowa Code section 453B.12; and 

possession of a controlled substance, second offense, in violation of Iowa 

Code section 124.401(5). In this direct appeal, Hahn contends the district 

court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence. Hahn argues two 

sheriff’s deputies violated Hahn’s federal and state constitutional rights to 

be free from unreasonable searches and seizures when they seized and 

searched a trash bag outside Hahn’s residence without first obtaining a 

warrant. We conditionally affirm Hahn’s convictions and remand this 

matter for further proceedings. 

Hahn came to law enforcement’s attention in this case based on a 

tip from the Iowa Department of Human Services (IDHS). On September 

7, 2018, IDHS protection worker Theresa Hirst sent an email to Scott 

County Deputy Sheriff Daniel Furlong. In the email, Hirst asked if Furlong 

had contact with Danielle Grimm or Ryan Hahn at an address in Dixon, 

Iowa. She noted: 

Suspected marijuana and pill usage. The child talked about 

Ryan going to Colorado several times a month to get 

marijuana that is prescribed to him. He has a clear bag with 

a bunch of some kind of pills. 

Based on this tip, Deputies Furlong and Eric Burton went to Hahn’s 

residence to conduct a trash pull. They testified there were two trash cans 

in the grass that were accessible from an alley. There was only one trash 

bag in the cans, and the deputies removed the bag from the can and 

searched it. They found a paper containing a summary of work hours for 

Grimm. They also found a “[r]eceipt from a marijuana dispensary in 

Denver, Colorado showing a purchase of two [half-]ounce quantities of 
3 

marijuana.” Deputy Burton followed up with Hirst and obtained additional 

information. 

Based on the information from Hirst, the items found during the 

garbage search, and Hahn’s criminal history, Deputy Burton applied for 

and obtained a search warrant for the residence. The deputies executed 

the warrant and found contraband, including marijuana, marijuana 

products, prescription drugs, and paraphernalia. Hahn filed a motion to 

suppress evidence. Hahn argued the deputies’ seizure and search of the 

garbage bag violated his constitutional right to be free from unreasonable 

seizures and searches in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Federal 

Constitution and article I, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution. Based on 

existing law, the district court denied the motion. The matter proceeded 

to trial, and the jury found Hahn guilty of possession with intent to deliver, 

failure to affix a drug tax stamp, and possession of a controlled substance. 

On appeal, Hahn contends the district court erred in denying his 

motion to suppress evidence. He contends the deputies physically 

trespassed on his protected effects and violated his reasonable expectation 

of privacy when they seized and searched his trash without a warrant. We 

agree. In State v. Wright, ___ N.W.2d ___, ____ (Iowa 2021), filed today, we 

held that law enforcement officers conducted an unreasonable and thus 

unconstitutional seizure and search when they seized and searched 

garbage bags left out for collection without first obtaining a warrant. The 

same rationale applies in this case. 

The State contends Hahn did not preserve the issue for appeal 

because Hahn did not specifically advocate for a new legal standard in the 

district court. We disagree. Hahn challenged the constitutionality of the 

seizure and search within the existing legal framework as set forth in 

California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35, 108 S. Ct. 1625 (1988), and State v. 
4 

Henderson, 435 N.W.2d 394 (Iowa Ct. App. 1988). Under that framework, 

the relevant issue was whether the garbage containers were within the 

curtilage of Hahn’s residence. Wright changed that standard to encompass 

trespassory searches. “Generally, when we create a new standard, we 

remand the case to the district court to apply the standard.” Schmidt v. 

State, 909 N.W.2d 778, 799 (Iowa 2018); see also State v. Barrett, 952 

N.W.2d 308, 314 (Iowa 2020) (“Of course, the district court didn’t have this 

opinion when it analyzed the new trial motion. When a district court 

doesn’t have the guidance of a particular test or applies the incorrect 

standard, ‘we remand for new findings and application of the correct 

standard.’ ” (quoting State v. Robinson, 506 N.W.2d 769, 771 (Iowa 1993))). 

This applies to the case creating the standard as well as all pending cases. 

See State v. Johnson, 539 N.W.2d 160, 165 (Iowa 1995) (stating a new rule 

“applies to the present case, prospectively to cases pending at the time this 

decision is filed, and to cases in which the issue resolved herein was 

preserved”). “Once a new rule has been announced in light of the court’s 

best understanding of the governing principles, the integrity of judicial 

review requires the new rule to be applied to all similar cases pending on 

review.” State v. Royer, 436 N.W.2d 637, 640 n.2 (Iowa 1989). 

Accordingly, we conditionally affirm Hahn’s convictions and remand 

this matter for further proceedings consistent with our opinion in Wright. 

On remand, the district court shall hold a hearing on defendant’s motion 

to suppress evidence without consideration of the evidence and 

information obtained during the trash pull used to support the warrant 

application. See State v. Veal, 930 N.W.2d 319, 340 (Iowa 2019) 

(conditionally affirming conviction and remanding for further proceedings 

in light of new rule); State v. Lilly, 930 N.W.2d 293, 309 (Iowa 2019) (same). 
5 

The district court shall conduct further proceedings as necessary 

contingent upon its ruling on the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence. 

AFFIRMED ON CONDITION AND REMANDED WITH 

DIRECTIONS. 

Appel, Oxley, and McDermott, JJ., join this opinion. Christensen, 

C.J., files a dissenting opinion, in which Waterman and Mansfield, JJ., 

join. 
6 

#20–0202, State v. Hahn

CHRISTENSEN, Chief Justice (dissenting). 

I respectfully dissent and would affirm the district court’s denial of 

Ryan Hahn’s motion to suppress because he failed to preserve his 

challenge to the constitutionality of the searches and seizures at issue and 

on the merits for the reasons stated in the dissents in State v. Wright, ___ 

N.W.2d ___, ___ (Iowa 2021) (Christensen, C.J., dissenting); id. at ___ 

(Waterman, J., dissenting); id. at ___ (Mansfield, J., dissenting). 

Contrary to the majority’s claim, Hahn did not challenge “the 

constitutionality of the search and seizure within the existing legal 

framework as set forth in California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35, 108 S. Ct. 

1625 (1988), and State v. Henderson, 435 N.W.2d 394 (Iowa Ct. App. 

1988).” Hahn’s motion to suppress actually sought to factually distinguish 

his case from those cases, arguing, “This case is different in that the trash 

can was not located at or near the curb on a day designated for trash 

pickup; the trash can was located up near the house and not on a trash 

pick up day.” At the suppression hearing, the district court sought 

clarification about Hahn’s challenge, asking, “[I]t looks like some of the 

areas of the law aren’t disputed but maybe this is more of a factual dispute; 

is that correct?” Hahn’s counsel responded, “That is correct, Your Honor.” 

The hearing proceeded to focus solely on whether the garbage was located 

next to Hahn’s home or along the public alley at the time of the garbage 

pulls. At no time did Hahn argue the search would have been 

unconstitutional if the police had obtained the garbage while it was located 

along the public alley. 

Notably, the district court’s ruling does not mention the State or 

Federal Constitutions and states, “The parties do not dispute the existing 

law in this matter, but believe there is only a factual issue in regard to the 
7 

location of the trash can.” As we have stressed time and again, “issues 

must ordinarily be both raised and decided by the district court before we 

will decide them on appeal.” Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 

2002). “This doctrine applies with equal force to constitutional issues.” 

State v. Bynum, 937 N.W.2d 319, 324 (Iowa 2020). It is clear from the 

record that Hahn never raised his constitutional challenge below, nor did 

the district court rule on such a challenge. 

“The public should not be required to fund a system that would allow 

trial counsel to, as lawyers often phrase it, ‘bet on the outcome,’ ” and “[i]t 

would be flagrantly unjust to allow such a lawyer to sit mute and complain 

only on appeal following an unfavorable outcome.” State v. Rutledge, 600 

N.W.2d 324, 326 (Iowa 1999). Nevertheless, that is the practice the 

majority endorses by reaching the merits of Hahn’s unpreserved claim 

today. It is unfair to the State and to the district court judge to effectively 

reverse a suppression ruling based on a constitutional ground the 

defendant never urged. 

Had Hahn preserved error on his constitutional claim, I would still 

affirm the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress for the reasons 

stated in the Wright dissents. Noticeably absent in the Wright majority 

opinion is an acknowledgment that, in an effort to protect trash, the 

majority changed the law by creating a new standard. Although I still 

disagree with the majority, I appreciate that it uses this case to 

acknowledge the significant change it made to our search and seizure 

jurisprudence in Wright.

Waterman and Mansfield, JJ., join this dissent.