## Facts

- Police stopped a vehicle in Waterloo, Iowa, after observing expired license plates; Cody James Darland Heinrichs was a passenger.
- An officer detected an odor of marijuana coming from the vehicle and asked Heinrichs to exit.
- When asked if he had anything on him, Heinrichs stated he had a pipe for smoking “incense.”
- The officer found a small foil bag labeled “100% Pure Evil,” marked “not for human consumption.”
- Heinrichs identified the substance as “K–2” and said he bought it over the counter at a liquor store.
- The State charged Heinrichs with possession of a controlled substance (“synthetic cannabis”) under Iowa Code § 124.401(5), as defined by Iowa Code § 124.204(4)(u) (2011).
- A criminalist’s testing indicated the substance contained AM–2201, a chemical designed to imitate cannabis’s effects on the brain.
- Before trial, Heinrichs moved to dismiss, arguing § 124.204(4)(u) was unconstitutionally vague as applied because AM–2201 was not specifically listed by name; the district court denied the motion.
- Heinrichs was convicted and appealed, renewing the as-applied vagueness challenge.

## Issues

1. Whether Iowa Code § 124.204(4)(u), incorporated into § 124.401(5), was unconstitutionally vague as applied to Heinrichs’s possession of AM–2201 because it allegedly failed to provide fair notice and permitted arbitrary enforcement.

## Decision

- The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss and affirmed Heinrichs’s conviction.
- The court held § 124.204(4)(u) was not unconstitutionally vague as applied to Heinrichs’s conduct.
- The court concluded a person of ordinary intelligence had fair notice that a synthetic cannabinoid designed to mimic marijuana’s effects fell within the statutory prohibition on THC and its synthetic equivalents and derivatives.
- The court found the statute supplied objective criteria limiting arbitrary enforcement, and enforcement here was supported by laboratory identification of the chemical.

## Legal Principles

- A criminal statute is void for vagueness under due process if it fails to give people of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to understand what conduct is prohibited, or if it authorizes or encourages arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement.
- An as-applied vagueness challenge is evaluated in light of the defendant’s specific conduct and the statute’s application to those facts.
- The legislature may use technical or scientific terms in defining prohibited conduct; scientific complexity does not alone make a statute unconstitutionally vague.
- A controlled-substance definition that includes THC, synthetic equivalents, and structurally/chemically related derivatives can provide fair notice when applied to a product the defendant recognizes as synthetic marijuana and that laboratory testing confirms is designed to replicate marijuana’s effects.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Heinrichs’s conviction, holding that Iowa’s statutory definition covering THC and its synthetic equivalents and derivatives provided adequate notice and enforceable standards when applied to AM–2201 sold as K–2 and intended to mimic marijuana’s hallucinogenic effects.


State v. Heinrichs, 845 N.W.2d 450 (Iowa Ct. App. 2013)