State of Iowa v. Ryan Dale Dunn

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
_______________

No. 24-1620
Filed January 7, 2026
_______________

State of Iowa,
Plaintiff–Appellee,
v.
Ryan Dale Dunn,
Defendant–Appellant.
_______________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County,
The Honorable Stephen A. Owen, Judge.
_______________

AFFIRMED
_______________

Cathleen J. Siebrecht of Siebrecht Law Firm, Pleasant Hill, attorney for
appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Adam Kenworthy, Assistant Attorney
General, attorneys for appellee.
_______________

Considered without oral argument
by Badding, P.J., Sandy, J., and Bower, S.J.
Opinion by Badding, P.J.

1
BADDING, Presiding Judge.

Ryan Dunn was arrested on an outstanding warrant after police officers
spotted him riding his bicycle in Ames. At the time of his arrest, Dunn was
carrying a black backpack, which an officer removed before placing him in
handcuffs. A pat-down of Dunn’s person revealed a firearm. Inside the
backpack, police found methamphetamine. The State charged Dunn for
possessing a controlled substance in violation of Iowa Code section
124.401(5) (2024) and unlawfully carrying a dangerous weapon in violation
of Iowa Code section 724.8B.

Dunn moved to suppress the methamphetamine. Citing State v.
Gaskins, 866 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 2015), he argued the warrantless search of the
backpack violated his state and federal constitutional rights because he was
fully restrained and the backpack was beyond his reaching distance when the
officers began their search. Dunn also filed a motion to dismiss the gun
charge, challenging section 724.8B as unconstitutional under the Second
Amendment and article I, section 1A of the Iowa Constitution. The district
court denied both motions. Dunn later entered a conditional guilty plea,
preserving his constitutional questions for our review. See Iowa Code
§ 814.6(3).

While this appeal was pending, our supreme court filed a pair of
decisions rejecting the same constitutional challenges Dunn raises here. In
State v. Scullark, the court held that “the reaching-distance rule” applicable
to vehicle searches “does not apply to searches of the arrestee’s person
incident to arrest.” 23 N.W.3d 49, 58 (Iowa 2025) (declining to extend
Gaskins to the personal-search context and concluding a fanny pack worn by
the defendant at the time of arrest but removed in the course his handcuffing
remained searchable). Later, in State v. Woods, the court upheld the

2
constitutionality of section 724.8B under both historical-tradition and strict-
scrutiny review, finding neither the Second Amendment nor article I, section
1A guarantee a right “to carry a firearm while simultaneously in the illegal
possession of a controlled substance.” 23 N.W.3d 258, 274 (Iowa 2025).

These intervening decisions control the outcome in this case. Under
both our state and federal constitutions, the backpack Dunn was wearing at
the time of his lawful arrest was subject to a warrantless search, even after
Dunn was restrained. See Scullark, 23 N.W.3d at 61. We need not grapple
with the district court’s separate conclusion that the inevitable-discovery
rule applies. See Jones v. State, 938 N.W.2d 1, 2 (Iowa 2020) (noting an
appellate court may affirm on any ground argued to the district court and
urged on appeal). And as for Dunn’s challenge to section 724.8B, 1 Woods
squarely forecloses relief. See 23 N.W.3d at 274, 277. We therefore affirm the
district court’s rulings without further opinion. See Iowa Ct. R. 21.26(1)(c).

AFFIRMED.

1
We construe Dunn’s challenge to section 724.8B as a facial attack only. To the
extent he raises an as-applied challenge, we deem that claim both unpreserved and waived.
The district court did not evaluate the constitutionality of the statute as applied to Dunn’s
particular facts, and Dunn’s appellate brief presents no meaningful argument in support
of such a claim. See State v. Tucker, 982 N.W.2d 645, 653 (Iowa 2022) (“[W]ell-reasoned
appellate decisions depend on the benefit of developed arguments on both sides and lower
court opinions squarely addressing the question.” (cleaned up)).

3