Deputies found Justin Emmick in a secluded part of his acreage after Ashley Ruhland called 911 and reported the shooting.
LE MARS, Iowa — The first deputy sent to a rural Plymouth County acreage on July 29 had to be directed to a remote section of the property where Justin F. Emmick had been shot. What began as an emergency response in an isolated part of the acreage became a homicide investigation and then a first-degree murder case against the woman who called 911. Ashley M. Ruhland, 35, has pleaded not guilty in Emmick’s death and is scheduled to stand trial Nov. 3.
The location is central to the chronology described by authorities. The Plymouth County Sheriff’s Office received the shooting report at about 3:10 p.m. and sent deputies and Akron EMS to an acreage in the 31000 block of K-18S north of Sioux City. The caller guided the first deputy to Emmick, 49, who was in a remote area of the property. Responders began lifesaving measures but were unable to revive him, and the Plymouth County medical examiner pronounced him dead at the scene. Officials soon identified the caller as Ruhland, who had been temporarily staying at the acreage. Investigators then shifted from treating her as the reporting party to examining her role in the fatal shooting.
Authorities say the circumstances that brought Ruhland and Emmick to that secluded location involved target shooting. According to the criminal complaint described by news outlets, the two had traveled to a corner of the property to shoot at targets. Ruhland had previously told family members that she wanted a gun for protection and that Emmick was going to teach her how to shoot, investigators said. The reports do not give a precise timeline for how long the target practice continued or describe each person’s movements. At some point, authorities allege, Ruhland fired at Emmick twice. Those shots became the physical starting point for investigators’ rejection of the self-defense claim she made afterward.
The complaint says one bullet struck Emmick in the back and another struck him in the head. Authorities concluded from the wounds that he was shot from behind. They also noted that Ruhland was not injured and said they found no evidence indicating she was in danger from Emmick. That language is consequential because it sets out the state’s early theory of the shooting: that the physical evidence did not match a justified use of deadly force. But the reviewed reports do not include a complete autopsy, trajectory analysis, crime-scene diagram or other forensic documentation. The allegation that he was shot from behind is therefore a reported investigative conclusion that will still have to be supported if the case is tried.
Investigators also focused on what Ruhland said. She claimed the shooting was self-defense, according to court documents. Authorities reported that she made statements akin to “it’s got to be now, or it’s going to be me” and “it was either him or me.” She also was quoted as saying, “I didn’t want him to suffer.” The public accounts do not provide the full 911 recording or a complete transcript of any interview, and they do not explain the exact order in which the comments were made. In a criminal trial, that context could be important because prosecutors and defense lawyers may offer different interpretations of what the statements show about Ruhland’s state of mind before and after the shooting.
The isolated property also complicates the public understanding of the case because the currently available sources identify no independent eyewitness to the shooting. The sheriff’s announcement says only that the caller directed the arriving deputy to Emmick. The reports reviewed do not describe another person who saw the shots fired. That means physical evidence, recorded statements and the history between Ruhland and Emmick may carry substantial importance. The public record so far does not disclose the type of firearm, who owned it, how many rounds were fired during target practice before the fatal shots or whether investigators recovered any recording from the scene. Those details remain unknown rather than facts that can safely be inferred.
One known piece of the prior history is a protection order. Authorities said Ruhland was the protected party in an order involving Emmick even though she had been staying at his acreage for several days. The reports do not provide the order itself or explain the allegations that resulted in it. They also do not state its exact restrictions. That information may eventually provide context for Ruhland’s assertion that she feared Emmick, but a protection order cannot by itself establish what happened when the shots were fired. The state’s case appears focused on the immediate circumstances at the target area, while the defense may seek to show why Ruhland believed danger existed. Her attorneys’ full strategy has not been publicly laid out.
Under Iowa law, self-defense turns on reasonable belief and necessity. A person may use reasonable force when the person reasonably believes it is necessary to defend against an imminent use of unlawful force. The statute recognizes circumstances in which deadly force can be justified, and it generally does not impose a duty to retreat on someone lawfully present who is not engaged in illegal activity. Those rules do not automatically validate or defeat Ruhland’s account. Instead, the evidence surrounding Emmick’s actions, Ruhland’s perception and the sequence of the shooting would determine whether a justification instruction applies and how jurors assess it.
The Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation ultimately charged Ruhland with first-degree murder, a Class A felony. Iowa’s homicide statute includes a willful, deliberate and premeditated killing within first-degree murder. A conviction carries life imprisonment without parole, according to state law and local reports on the case. The severity of the charge places particular importance on proof of intent and premeditation, not merely proof that Ruhland fired the fatal shots. She has acknowledged the shooting through the self-defense account reported in the complaint, but that is not the same as admitting the elements of murder. Her plea requires the prosecution to prove those elements in court.
The investigation brought together several local and state agencies. The Plymouth County Sheriff’s Office and Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation said they were jointly investigating. The Iowa State Patrol, Le Mars Police Department, Hinton Police Department and Akron EMS also assisted. The sheriff’s office initially released the identity of Emmick, Ruhland’s arrest and the basic emergency-response timeline but said further information would be withheld because the investigation was ongoing. Later details about the target shooting, wound locations, statements and protection order came through the criminal complaint as reported by news organizations covering the case.
Ruhland’s court case then advanced quickly through August. She appeared before a judge Aug. 10, when the first-degree murder charge was formally presented. A written arraignment filed Aug. 21 entered her plea of not guilty. The filing also included a demand for a speedy trial. Local reporting later identified Judge Jeffrey Neary as assigned to the case. By Sept. 1, the court calendar reported by area media showed a pretrial hearing scheduled for Oct. 20 and trial set for Nov. 3. Those dates create the possibility that evidentiary disputes will be addressed soon, although criminal court schedules can be revised.
Among the matters that could shape the prosecution are evidence from the remote target area and the admissibility and context of Ruhland’s statements. The state may seek to connect the direction of the gunshots, her words after the shooting and events before the trip to the secluded part of the acreage. The defense can dispute that interpretation and present evidence relevant to the self-defense claim. The protection order could also become part of the case if a judge finds related evidence admissible. None of those potential arguments should be mistaken for a prediction of what either side will actually present, because the reviewed public filings do not contain a complete trial witness list or evidentiary record.
For now, the remote acreage remains the setting of an allegation whose legal meaning has not been decided. Emmick died there July 29, Ruhland called authorities, and investigators later charged her with intentionally killing him rather than acting in lawful self-defense. Ruhland has denied criminal guilt through her not-guilty plea. She remains in custody according to the latest reports reviewed, with the next publicly reported court proceeding set for Oct. 20 and a jury trial scheduled for Nov. 3.
Author note: Last updated Sept. 8, 2026.