IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 19-0290

Filed January 23, 2020

STATE OF IOWA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

JUSTIN LEE ERDMAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Gregory D. Brandt, 

District Associate Judge.

Justin Erdman appeals the denial of his motion to suppress following his 

criminal convictions. AFFIRMED. 

Colin McCormack of Van Cleaf & McCormack Law Firm, LLP, Des Moines, 

for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Sharon K. Hall, Assistant Attorney 

General, for appellee.

Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Mullins and Ahlers, JJ.
2

MULLINS, Judge.

At 12:45 a.m. on July 12, 2018, Officers Brian Minnehan and Ryan 

Steinkamp of the Des Moines Police Department’s summer enforcement team1

were on routine patrol in a marked police cruiser. They observed a vehicle, later 

determined to be driven by Justin Erdman, pull over to the side of the road. After 

the officers passed the vehicle in their police cruiser, the vehicle pulled back into 

the road and continued driving. The officers were suspicious and thought the 

vehicle was trying to avoid them. The officers turned around and followed the 

vehicle, and Minnehan observed it was donning a non-functional license plate 

lamp. Minnehan testified at a suppression hearing that the deficient lamp rendered 

the license plate partially illegible from a distance of fifty feet. The officers pursued 

the vehicle and ultimately initiated a traffic stop in a nearby convenience store 

parking lot, where the subject vehicle had pulled up to a gas pump. 

Upon approach, Steinkamp observed both the driver and passenger side 

doors open; the passenger side door then shut immediately, while the driver side 

door remained open. Both officers observed what appeared to be an “AK-47 style 

rifle” on the floor in the back seat of the vehicle. Minnehan removed Erdman from 

the vehicle immediately and detained him for officer-safety purposes while 

Steinkamp held the passenger at gunpoint and radioed for backup. Steinkamp 

then removed the passenger, detained him, and placed him in a police cruiser. 

While detaining the passenger, another officer observed pistol magazines in the 

 

1 This unit does not respond to calls for service. It focuses on gang, gun, and drug 

activity, as well as pursuing individuals subject to active warrants. 
3

vehicle next to the driver’s seat, after which he questioned Erdman, “Where’s your 

gun at? Where’s your pistol at? You got the mags in there, where’s the pistol at?” 

After placing the passenger in a cruiser, Steinkamp returned to the vehicle. 

The officers engaged in discussion about whether the suspected rifle was real. 

One of the officers stated, “I don’t know, but he’s got pistol mags over here too.” 

Steinkamp then located a cigarillo package containing marijuana on the ground 

next to the passenger side of the vehicle. A review of Steinkamp’s body-camera

footage reveals, upon initial approach, the package was located a foot or so away 

from the rear tire on the passenger side of the vehicle. The footage also depicts 

the vehicle to be a two-door Ford Mustang, with the front of the rear tire being a 

foot or so behind the door opening. Steinkamp later questioned the passenger 

about the substance; the passenger denied any knowledge of its presence. 

Although they were unsure whether the observed gun was real, the officers 

determined they had probable cause to search. A few minutes into the physical 

search, officers verified the gun in the backseat was an airsoft gun. The search 

continued, and officers additionally discovered a .45 caliber pistol underneath the 

driver’s seat as well as a “roach containing marijuana.” Minnehan testified the 

search was solely based on the marijuana found next to the vehicle and had 

nothing to do with his observation of what appeared to be a firearm in the back 

seat. 

Erdman was charged by trial information with carrying weapons, operating 

while intoxicated, and possession of a controlled substance. Erdman filed a 

pretrial motion to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the search, in which 

he generally argued the search should have been limited to determining whether 
4

the suspected rifle was real, its presence was used as a pretext for the search, 

and the search was required to cease when it was learned it was merely an airsoft 

gun. Following a hearing, the district court denied the motion, concluding the 

officers’ observation of what appeared to be a rifle provided probable cause to 

search and the observance of pistol magazines prior to the determination the gun 

was an airsoft provided further probable cause to continue the search. The court 

further found the officers’ belief that the marijuana was discarded from the vehicle 

“would establish additional probable cause to search the vehicle.” However, the 

court noted the contents of the vehicle provided an independent basis for probable 

cause. The matter proceeded to trial, and a jury found Erdman guilty of carrying 

weapons and possession of a controlled substance. Erdman appealed following 

the imposition of sentence. 

On appeal, Erdman challenges the denial of his motion to suppress as 

unconstitutional for want of probable cause. “When a defendant challenges a 

district court’s denial of a motion to suppress based upon the deprivation of a state 

or federal constitutional right, our standard of review is de novo.” State v. Fogg, 

___ N.W.2d ___, ___, 2019 WL 6973856, at *2 (Iowa 2019) (quoting State v. 

Coffman, 914 N.W.2d 240, 244 (Iowa 2018)). “[W]e independently evaluate the 

totality of the circumstances as shown by the entire record.” State v. Smith, 919 

N.W.2d 1, 4 (Iowa 2018) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. White, 887 N.W.2d 

172, 175 (Iowa 2016)). “Each case must be evaluated in light of its unique 

circumstances.” Fogg, ___ N.W.2d at ___, 2019 WL 6973856, at *2 (quoting 

Coffman, 914 N.W.2d at 244). We give deference to the district court’s findings of 
5

fact, but we are not bound by them. State v. Storm, 898 N.W.2d 140, 144 (Iowa 

2017).

“The Fourth Amendment [to] the United States Constitution,” as applied to 

the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, “and article I, section 8 of the Iowa 

Constitution protect individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures.” 

State v. Naujoks, 637 N.W.2d 101, 107 (Iowa 2001); accord State v. McNeal, 867 

N.W.2d 91, 99 (Iowa 2015). Evidence obtained following a violation of these 

constitutional protections is generally inadmissible at trial. See Wong Sun v. 

United States, 371 U.S. 471, 484–85 (1963); Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 654–55 

(1961); Naujoks, 637 N.W.2d at 111. “Warrantless searches are per se 

unreasonable if they do not fall within one of the well-recognized exceptions to the 

warrant requirement.” State v. Lowe, 812 N.W.2d 554, 568 (Iowa 2012) (quoting 

Naujoks, 637 N.W.2d at 107). The exceptions to the warrant requirement include, 

among others, searches based on probable cause and exigent circumstances. 

Naujoks, 637 N.W.2d at 107. Under the automobile exception, “[t]he inherent 

mobility of motor vehicles satisfies the exigent-circumstances requirement”; thus 

all that is required is probable cause. See Storm, 898 N.W.2d at 145. “The 

standard for probable cause is whether a person of reasonable prudence would 

believe a crime has been committed or that evidence of a crime might be located 

in the particular area to be searched.” Naujoks, 637 N.W.2d at 108. 

In this appeal, Erdman takes a subjective approach, honing in on 

Minnehan’s testimony that the presence of marijuana was the sole basis for the 

vehicle search. But subjectiveness is not the standard for probable cause. 

Instead, probable cause exists to search a vehicle 
6

when the facts and circumstances would lead a reasonably prudent 

person to believe that the vehicle contains contraband. The facts 

and circumstances upon which a finding of probable cause is based 

include “the sum total . . . and the synthesis of what the police have 

heard, what they know, and what they observe as trained officers.”

State v. Predka, 555 N.W.2d 202, 207 (Iowa 1996) (ellipsis in original) (quoting 

State v. Edgington, 487 N.W.2d 675, 678 (Iowa 1992)). 

The question is, given the totality of what was seen and heard by law 

enforcement, would a reasonably prudent person believe a vehicle contained 

contraband? See id. Upon our de novo review, we answer that question in the 

affirmative. The officers observed Erdman’s vehicle engage in evasive behavior, 

which led them to believe that the vehicle was trying to avoid them. Upon following 

the vehicle, they observed inadequate illumination of the license plate, and initiated 

a lawful traffic stop. Upon approach, both officers immediately observed what 

appeared to be a rifle on the floor of the backseat. After removing Erdman from 

the vehicle and detaining him for officer-safety purposes, but before verifying the 

rifle was merely an airsoft gun, officers observed pistol magazines next to the 

driver’s seat. A suspicion that the magazines’ counterpart, a pistol, would be found 

in the vehicle is certainly not unreasonable, and thus provided the officers with 

probable cause to search.

Also before verifying the rifle was an airsoft gun, Steinkamp located 

marijuana on the ground near the passenger side door. And, when the officers 

pulled in behind the vehicle, Steinkamp observed the passenger door open briefly 

and then close. This all occurred before the physical search of the vehicle. The 

totality of circumstances controls, not Minnehan’s subjective testimony that the 

marijuana was the sole basis for the search. Even if the marijuana was the sole 
7

basis, given the vehicle’s evasive maneuvers, the passenger’s brief opening of his 

door upon initiation of the traffic stop, and the finding of the marijuana in the 

immediate vicinity of the passenger door, although Steinkamp did not observe the 

package being discarded from the vehicle, the marijuana provided an independent 

basis for a reasonable conclusion the vehicle contained contraband. 

Upon our de novo review, we conclude the search was supported by exigent 

circumstances coupled with probable cause and was therefore reasonable, which 

is all that is constitutionally required. See U.S. Const. amend. IV; Iowa Const. art. 

I, § 8. As such, we affirm the denial of Erdman’s motion to suppress and his 

convictions.

AFFIRMED.