Iowa Supreme Court Revives Warrantless “Trash Pulls”
The Constitutional Validation of Iowa Code § 808.16(3) in State v. Amble & Mandracchia

Introduction

The Supreme Court of Iowa’s decision in State of Iowa v. Charles Aaron Amble and John Joseph Mandracchia (No. 23-2114, 13 June 2025) marks a pivotal moment in Iowa search-and-seizure jurisprudence. After its 2021 ruling in State v. Wright required warrants for garbage searches, the legislature swiftly enacted Iowa Code § 808.16, declaring curbside trash “abandoned” and thus searchable without a warrant. Polk County’s district court struck the statute down as facially unconstitutional; the State appealed. In a unanimous-minus-one opinion by Justice Waterman (Justice McDermott dissenting), the high court:

• Reversed the suppression of evidence obtained from three warrantless garbage searches (“trash pulls”);
• Held § 808.16(3) facially and as-applied constitutional; and
• Reaffirmed the legislature’s power to redefine abandonment, thereby extinguishing the privacy expectations that had underpinned Wright.

This commentary unpacks the ruling, explains its doctrinal foundations, and forecasts its broader implications.

Summary of the Judgment

Detective Brad Frick, acting on a citizen tip, removed sealed garbage bags placed at the curb outside the defendants’ Des Moines home on three consecutive Mondays. Each pull yielded THC-related paraphernalia and paperwork linking the items to Charles Amble, Teresa Amble, and John Mandracchia. The items became the basis for a warrant that unearthed further contraband in the house. The district court, relying on Wright, suppressed all evidence and declared § 808.16 unconstitutional for violating Iowa’s separation-of-powers doctrine.

The Supreme Court disagreed. While acknowledging that courts are the “final arbiters” of constitutional meaning, the majority found one severable subsection—§ 808.16(3)—to be a valid exercise of legislative police power. By characterizing curbside garbage as “abandoned property,” the subsection destroyed any privacy expectation recognized in Wright. Because constitutional protection does not extend to abandoned effects, the trash pulls and subsequent warrant were valid. The court therefore reversed and remanded for trial.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• State v. Wright, 961 N.W.2d 396 (Iowa 2021): Required warrants for garbage searches, relying on a Clear Lake anti-scavenging ordinance and the “positive law model.” The legislature’s reaction—§ 808.16—was aimed squarely at undoing Wright’s effect.
• California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988): The U.S. Supreme Court held no Fourth-Amendment expectation of privacy in curbside trash. Iowa departed from Greenwood in Wright but realigns today.
• State v. Burns, 988 N.W.2d 352 (Iowa 2023): Upheld warrantless DNA collection from an abandoned straw; cited to show Iowa’s consistent rule that abandoned property loses constitutional protection.
• Severability / Avoidance Line: Breeden v. Iowa DOC, 887 N.W.2d 602 (Iowa 2016) (severability) and Site A Landowners, 977 N.W.2d 486 (Iowa 2022) (legislature cannot override constitution).
• U.S. Positivist Scholarship: Baude & Stern, “The Positive-Law Model of the Fourth Amendment,” 129 Harv. L. Rev. 1821 (2016), heavily cited in Wright.

2. Legal Reasoning

a. Statutory Redefinition of Abandonment

The linchpin is § 808.16(3): “Garbage placed outside of a person’s residence for waste collection in a publicly accessible area shall be deemed abandoned property.” The court treated this as a traditional exercise of the police power (health, safety, welfare) akin to statutes declaring when vehicles, wells, or animals are “abandoned.” Once property is legally abandoned, it no longer qualifies as the owner’s “papers and effects.” Thus, article I, § 8 simply never attaches.

b. Harmony with Wright Rather Than Overruling

Rather than discard Wright, the majority read Wright’s privacy finding as contingent on “positive law” (the municipal ordinance). Because § 808.16 overrode and pre-empted such ordinances, Wright’s factual predicate evaporated. Result: same constitutional test, different positive law, different outcome.

c. Separation of Powers & Judicial Supremacy

The district court treated §§ 808.16(1), (2), and (4) as legislative overreach because they purport to pronounce constitutional rules (“no reasonable expectation of privacy,” “not constitutionally protected effects”). The Supreme Court sidestepped that thorn by applying severability and constitutional avoidance: it declined to pass on those subsections, using only subsection (3) to resolve the case. Hence, no confrontation with the legislature’s arguably declarative constitutional proclamations.

d. Facial vs. As-Applied Challenge

Defendants brought a facial challenge—arguing the statute is unconstitutional in every conceivable application. The court stressed the heavy burden: if any scenario exists in which the law operates constitutionally, the facial challenge fails. Subsection (3) supplied that scenario.

e. Dissent’s Critique

Justice McDermott faulted the majority for letting the legislature “define away” a constitutional right. He emphasized Wright’s alternative “reasonable expectation of privacy” holding, insisted trash disposal is functionally non-voluntary in modern cities, and likened the statute to impermissibly redefining other constitutional terms (e.g., “arms,” “property”) by fiat.

3. Impact of the Judgment

• Law-Enforcement Tool Restored. Iowa officers may once again conduct warrantless garbage searches statewide, regardless of local “anti-scavenging” rules.
• Municipal Ordinances Pre-empted. Any city or county rules suggesting residential trash enjoys privacy protection are unenforceable to the extent they conflict with § 808.16(3).
• Predictive Ripple Effects.
  • Potential extension to digital “abandonment” (cloud-stored data deleted by user?).
  • Legislative re-definition of other contested privacy zones (e.g., heat signatures, drone overflights) may be encouraged.
  • Renewed debates over legislative vs. judicial power in privacy matters—McDermott’s dissent provides a roadmap for future constitutional challenges, possibly relying on federal or state due-process theories rather than search-and-seizure language.
• Practical Guidance for Practitioners. Defense counsel must now attack particular trash pulls on non-constitutional grounds (e.g., curtilage intrusion, statutory non-compliance, or warrant defects) or show that the trash had not yet reached a “publicly accessible area.”

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Positive Law Model. Courts measure privacy by asking what other laws (property, trespass, licensing) say about who may access the item or place.
• Abandonment. When you intentionally give up all rights in property, it no longer counts as your “effect.” Police need no warrant to search or seize it.
• Facial vs. As-Applied Challenge. Facial = law invalid everywhere; as-applied = invalid in this case’s facts. Harder to win facially.
• Severability. Courts may cut out unconstitutional portions of a statute and leave the rest standing.
• Constitutional Avoidance. If a case can be decided on non-constitutional grounds, or by relying on a narrower portion of a statute, courts prefer that path.

Conclusion

The Iowa Supreme Court’s decision breathes new life into warrantless garbage searches by validating the legislature’s declaration that curbside trash is abandoned. While the majority views § 808.16(3) as a routine exercise of legislative power over property status, the dissent warns of a slippery slope—whereby legislatures could hollow out constitutional guarantees through strategic redefinitions. For now, the practical upshot is clear: Iowa officers may again sift through trash at the curb without a warrant, and defense attorneys must recalibrate their suppression strategies accordingly. Whether future courts or constitutional amendments will revisit the uneasy balance between legislative prerogative and privacy protections remains to be seen, but Amble & Mandracchia firmly establishes the current rule of law in Iowa: the curb is where ownership—and constitutional shelter—end.