Full Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA _______________ No. 25-1396 Filed September 2, 2026 _______________ State of Iowa, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Dartangan James Leonard, Defendant–Appellant. _______________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, The Honorable Stephen A. Owen, Judge. _______________ AFFIRMED _______________ Mark C. Meyer, Iowa City, attorney for appellant. Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Katherine Wenman, Assistant Attorney General, attorneys for appellee. _______________ Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ. Opinion by Langholz, J. 1 LANGHOLZ, Judge. Acting on a tip, law-enforcement officers quietly followed a car on Highway 30. When a passenger flicked a cigarette out the car’s window, the officers pulled the car over. They approached to investigate the passenger and spotted a used “small THC vape pen” in the center console near the driver. The driver—soon identified as Dartangan Leonard—admitted that the pen was medical cannabidiol, showed a valid Iowa medical cannabidiol registration card on his phone, and denied vaping in the car. Indeed, there was no whiff of marijuana’s distinctive odor. An officer took the pen and had the driver step out. The driver also denied that there were any illegal substances in the car. And when officers separately asked each occupant where they were traveling from, each gave a contradictory response. A drug dog soon circled the car and alerted for drugs near the rear passenger door. And so, officers searched the car and found pounds of marijuana products in the trunk of the car. Leonard now appeals his conviction for possession with intent to deliver marijuana as a habitual offender after a conditional guilty plea, challenging the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress the evidence found in the search. He argues that the law-enforcement officers lacked the required probable cause to make the warrantless automobile search reasonable under our state and federal constitutions. As Leonard sees it, because the officers already knew there was legal medical cannabidiol in the car, the dog alert did not raise the probability of wrongdoing high enough to amount to probable cause. But on de novo review, we agree with the district court that the totality of these circumstances gave the officers probable cause to search the car. We thus affirm the denial of Leonard’s motion to suppress and his conviction. 2 I. On May 4, 2025, the Central Iowa Drug Task Force passed a tip to the Story County Sheriff’s Office, calling attention to a car traveling west from Marshalltown with marijuana onboard. After observing the identified car pass by, a deputy shadowed the vehicle. Nearing Colo, the deputy observed a passenger in the car toss a cigarette out the window and pulled over the car for littering. See Iowa Code § 321.369 (2025). The deputy approached the car to talk with the passenger. And the passenger claimed the car had traveled south from Zearing, which did not match the information the deputy had received from the task force. The deputy then spotted a “small THC vape pen” in the center console. In response, Leonard, the driver, produced a valid Iowa medical cannabidiol registration card, which allows the use of medical cannabidiol in vaporizable form. See Iowa Admin. Code r. 641-154.13(2)(a)(3). The deputy had Leonard step out of the car, took the pen, briefly rested it on the roof of the car, and then placed it in the patrol vehicle. The deputy did not smell the odor of marijuana in the car. When asked, Leonard denied having anything illegal in the car. He also told the deputy that the pair had traveled westward from Marshalltown, which matched the tip. A drug-dog team soon arrived and prepared to circle the car. The trooper with the dog had the passenger roll up the windows. The dog was trained to detect trace amounts of four controlled substances, including marijuana, and was conditioned to alert at the position of strongest odor. After two trips around the car, the dog alerted at the rear passenger door, 3 close to the gas cap. The law-enforcement officers then searched the vehicle, ultimately finding over ten pounds of illegal marijuana products. Leonard was charged with two felonies as a habitual offender— possession with intent to deliver marijuana and failure to affix a drug tax stamp. See Iowa Code §§ 124.401(d), 453B.12, 902.8. And he soon moved to suppress the results of the warrantless search, arguing that the law- enforcement officers lacked probable cause. After considering the dog’s training, the removal of the vape pen, the rolled-up windows, and the other circumstances of the dog sniff, the court denied the motion to suppress. Leonard then entered a conditional guilty plea to possession with intent to deliver marijuana as a habitual offender, preserving his right to challenge the denial of his motion to suppress. The court accepted the plea and sentenced Leonard to fifteen years in prison with a three-year mandatory minimum. He now appeals his conviction, challenging only the suppression ruling.1 II. This case turns on the narrow issue of whether the dog’s alert and related circumstances created probable cause to search Leonard’s car. Under both the Iowa and federal constitutions, searches must be reasonable. U.S. Const. amend. IV; Iowa Const. art. I, § 8. Warrantless searches are presumed 1 We have jurisdiction over a conditional guilty plea reserving an issue for appeal only when “entered by the court with the consent of the prosecuting attorney and the defendant or the defendant’s counsel” and “when the appellate adjudication of the reserved issue is in the interest of justice.” Iowa Code § 814.6(3). Because Leonard’s appeal of the suppression ruling “is the same issue reserved by the conditional guilty plea, and success on appeal of that issue would give [Leonard] some relief,” the interest-of- justice jurisdictional threshold is satisfied. State v. Scullark, 23 N.W.3d 49, 53 (Iowa 2025). 4 unreasonable. State v. Moriarty, 566 N.W.2d 866, 868 (Iowa 1997). As an exception, automobiles may be reasonably searched without a warrant if there is probable cause to believe evidence of a crime is inside. State v. Storm, 898 N.W.2d 140, 155 (Iowa 2017). We review the district court’s decision that probable cause existed de novo. State v. McMullen, 940 N.W.2d 456, 460 (Iowa Ct. App. 2019). “In the context of evidentiary searches, ‘probable cause’ exists when a reasonably prudent person would believe that evidence of a crime will be discovered in the place to be searched.” Moriarty, 566 N.W.2d at 868. In other words, the totality of the circumstances must create reasonable grounds for a belief that criminal evidence will be found. State v. Stevens, 970 N.W.2d 598, 605–06 (Iowa 2022). A fair probability of criminality is enough, because “[w]hile there might conceivably be innocent explanations, probable cause does not require certainty.” State v. Tipton, 897 N.W.2d 653, 687 (Iowa 2017); accord State v. Hunt, 974 N.W.2d 493, 499 (Iowa 2022). In general, a reliable drug dog’s “alert” for contraband establishes probable cause to search a car and the containers within that could conceal the contraband. Stevens, 970 N.W.2d at 602. But the location of the dog’s signal and the proximity of vehicle occupants to potentially illicit substances can affect probable cause. See id. at 606, 608–10. Ordinarily then, once the dog detected drugs at the corner of Leonard’s car, probable cause would be firmly established. But Leonard points to Iowa’s legalization of medical cannabidiol as complicating the probabilities. He contends that his valid medical cannabidiol registration card and legal possession of some medical cannabidiol in the vehicle substantially undercut the grounds for the search because the dog could have reacted to entirely innocent substances. 5 To be sure, we are statutorily prohibited from considering Leonard’s possession of a medical cannabidiol card as grounds for probable cause or using his possession of the card “to support a search of” his property. Iowa Code § 124E.12(9). Likewise, defenses are available against prosecution for possession of authorized medical cannabidiol products. See id. § 124E.12(4). And there are now some permitted forms of medical cannabidiol. Iowa Admin. Code r. 641-154.13; see also State v. Middlekauff, 974 N.W.2d 781, 803 (Iowa 2022) (summarizing the statutory scheme). But it does not follow that because some uses of a substance are authorized, detection of that substance has no bearing on the possibility of finding criminal evidence. See State v. Luckett, No. 21-1808, 2022 WL 3064782, at *2–3 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 3, 2022) (holding that the odor of marijuana, despite potentially being legal hemp, established probable cause to search a vehicle). Nor does the statute’s prohibition on using the medical cannabidiol card as grounds for probable cause make the card a get-out-of-probable-cause-free card, inoculating its holder from ever being searched, no matter the totality of the circumstances that would otherwise give a reasonable belief of criminal evidence in his belongings. Leonard also seeks support for discounting the dog alert from a Florida appellate decision, Ford v. State, 400 So. 3d 838 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2025). In Ford, the “sole basis” for a search of a rideshare vehicle was a dog alert. Id. at 843–44. Inside, the passenger, a medical marijuana cardholder, had legal cannabis—and a duffle bag of meth and cocaine. Id. at 841–42. Because Florida precedent emphasized that a singular cause of a search must have some immediately apparent criminality, the dog’s inability to signal whether the smell was from the legal or illegal drugs prevented probable cause. Id. at 843–44. 6 But we need not decide whether to follow Ford because it does not fit the facts here. The dog’s alert was not the sole basis for the search. Law enforcement became interested in Leonard’s car after a tip. Leonard and the passenger gave contradictory accounts of their travel. And beyond just the alert, the circumstances of the dog sniff also suggested the presence of more drugs. The only known source of legal medical cannabidiol odor, the vape pen, had been removed from the vehicle, the windows were raised before the sniff, and there was no obvious marijuana odor. The dog, who could detect three other drugs, alerted some distance from both the last permanent position of the vape pen near the driver and its temporary position atop the vehicle—and proximity and position do matter. Leonard had also informed police there were no illegal drugs in the car, making a dog alert in contradiction more suspicious. Simply put, the dog’s alert was not the only reasonable ground to think Leonard had illegal drugs in the car. What’s more, cases closer to home emphasize the continued worth of a good whiff. The Eighth Circuit found the odor of marijuana, even if possibly from “innocent legal conduct” where legalized, was sufficient to establish probable cause when combined with other circumstances of suspected use and sale of controlled substances at the location. See United States v. Gilmore, 111 F.4th 942, 944–45 (8th Cir. 2024). A federal district court in Iowa ruled that the inability of a drug dog to signal exactly which drug it had detected does not inhibit probable cause. United States v. Williams, 684 F. Supp. 3d 923, 939–40 & n.11 (N.D. Iowa 2023) (noting further in dicta that “[w]hile it is theoretically possible that a drug dog may alert to hemp and not marijuana, that a drug dog alerts to the presence of a controlled substance would appear to give rise to probable cause to believe marijuana (or some other controlled substance) is present, even if it later turns out to be hemp”). The Iowa Supreme Court has long held that marijuana odor establishes probable cause. 7 State v. Eubanks, 355 N.W.2d 57, 59 (Iowa 1984). And our court has reasoned that a smell which calls to mind both innocent and criminal behavior still raises the probability of contraband being present. See Luckett, 2022 WL 3064782, at *2–3. The alert of a drug dog contributes to probable cause, even if innocent substances can spur it. Together, the tip, the statements of the passenger and driver, the removal of all known drugs before the sniff, and the alert and its position provide reasonable grounds that evidence of a crime would be found in the car. We agree with the district court that the law-enforcement officers had probable cause for the search. AFFIRMED. 8