Ashley Ruhland was the protected party in an order involving Justin Emmick while temporarily staying at the acreage where he was killed.
LE MARS, Iowa — A protection order involving Ashley M. Ruhland and Justin F. Emmick has emerged as one of the most unusual unresolved details in the first-degree murder case against Ruhland. Authorities say the 35-year-old Sioux City woman was the protected party in an order against Emmick while also staying temporarily at his rural Plymouth County acreage, where prosecutors allege she fatally shot the 49-year-old man during target practice July 29. Ruhland says she acted in self-defense and has pleaded not guilty.
The order could provide context for why Ruhland told authorities she feared for her safety, but the publicly available record leaves major questions unanswered. Reports citing the criminal complaint do not describe why the order was entered, what conduct led to it, when it took effect or what restrictions it imposed. They also do not explain why Ruhland was staying with Emmick for several days or how the two came to spend time together on his remote property. Those unanswered issues matter because prosecutors allege the shooting itself did not occur during an immediate threat, while the defense position indicated by Ruhland’s statements is that she believed the situation had become a matter of survival.
On the afternoon of July 29, Ruhland and Emmick were in a remote corner of the acreage shooting at targets, according to the complaint as described by local media and Law&Crime. Authorities said Ruhland had earlier told family members she wanted a firearm for protection and that Emmick would teach her how to shoot. Investigators allege she ultimately fired two shots at him, striking him in the back and the head. The state’s allegation is that Emmick was facing away from her when he was shot. Public reports have not disclosed a full forensic reconstruction or the defense’s detailed account of what occurred before the gunfire.
The first official record of the emergency came at about 3:10 p.m., when the Plymouth County Sheriff’s Office received a 911 call from the acreage in the 31000 block of K-18S. Deputies and Akron EMS responded. The sheriff’s office said the first deputy was directed by the caller to the part of the property where Emmick had been shot. Emergency personnel tried to save him, but the county medical examiner pronounced him dead at the scene. Investigators later identified Ruhland as the person who called 911 and said she was responsible for Emmick’s death. She was transported to the sheriff’s office as investigators worked to determine whether the shooting was justified.
Ruhland’s explanation quickly became a focal point. Authorities said she claimed self-defense and made statements similar to “it’s got to be now, or it’s going to be me” and “it was either him or me.” The complaint also attributes the statement “I didn’t want him to suffer” to her. Those excerpts suggest both a claimed fear of Emmick and an acknowledgment of what she had done, but the full interviews have not been made public in the sources reviewed. Without the complete recording or transcript, it is not possible to determine from the excerpts alone what she said about the alleged threat, what happened immediately before the shots or how investigators questioned her afterward.
Investigators said their observations did not support her self-defense account. According to the complaint, they found no evidence indicating that Ruhland was in danger from Emmick. They also emphasized that the bullet wounds showed Emmick had been shot from behind and that Ruhland was uninjured. Those facts form a core part of the state’s early case, but they remain allegations subject to challenge. A defense could seek to place the shooting within a longer sequence of events rather than the instant captured by wound direction alone. No public source reviewed has disclosed whether the defense plans to do that, and Ruhland’s attorneys have not presented evidence in a trial.
The protection order therefore sits at the intersection of two different questions. One concerns history: what had happened between Ruhland and Emmick before July 29, and why was a court order in place? The second concerns immediacy: whatever the history was, did Ruhland reasonably believe deadly force was necessary at the moment she fired? Iowa law treats self-defense as a justification when a person reasonably believes force is necessary to defend against an imminent use of unlawful force. The law can allow deadly force in qualifying circumstances and generally does not require a lawfully present person to retreat. But a prior fear or conflict does not automatically answer whether a particular shooting meets that standard.
Likewise, the fact that Ruhland was staying at Emmick’s property despite the protection order raises questions without supplying simple answers. The reviewed reports do not establish whether the order prohibited contact by both parties, restricted only Emmick, had exceptions or was affected by any later court action. They also do not establish that Ruhland violated the order by being there. Describing those unknowns is important because assumptions about protection orders can distort the facts of a criminal case. What is established in the current reporting is narrower: authorities said an order existed, Ruhland was identified as its protected party, and she was temporarily residing at the same acreage where Emmick was killed.
After investigating the scene, authorities did not accept Ruhland’s claim as a basis to treat the death as a justified shooting. The Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation charged her with first-degree murder, and she was booked into the Plymouth Jail. Iowa law classifies first-degree murder as a Class A felony and includes within the offense a willful, deliberate and premeditated killing. If convicted of first-degree murder, Ruhland would face life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. She is presumed innocent of the charge unless prosecutors prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Her court filings make clear that she is contesting the accusation. Ruhland made an initial court appearance Aug. 10. A written arraignment filed Aug. 21 entered a plea of not guilty, and local news organizations reported that she also demanded a speedy trial. A judge has since set a pretrial hearing for Oct. 20 and trial for Nov. 3 in Plymouth County District Court. That schedule makes the coming pretrial phase potentially important because attorneys can ask the court to decide what evidence jurors will hear, including statements, records and other material bearing on the competing accounts.
The investigation has been a joint effort between the Plymouth County Sheriff’s Office and the Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation. The sheriff’s office said the Iowa State Patrol, Le Mars Police Department, Hinton Police Department and Akron EMS also assisted. Officials initially declined to release further details, citing the ongoing investigation. That limited disclosure means the public has not yet seen the full evidentiary picture. Reports reviewed do not state who owned the firearm, identify its type, describe the exact positions of Ruhland and Emmick, disclose a complete autopsy report or provide the entire 911 call.
Those missing details are particularly significant in a case where both prior circumstances and a split-second claim of danger may be litigated. Prosecutors can point to the shot from behind, Ruhland’s lack of injury and the statements they included in the complaint. The defense can challenge the interpretation of those facts and offer evidence about the history between the two, including any admissible material connected to the protection order. What weight that history should receive will depend on evidentiary rulings and what can be established through testimony and records rather than speculation.
Ruhland is currently in custody according to the latest reporting reviewed and continues to face one count of first-degree murder. Her plea is not guilty. The Oct. 20 pretrial hearing is the next publicly reported court date, with trial scheduled for Nov. 3. Until the evidence is presented or the case is otherwise resolved, the protection order, the self-defense claim and investigators’ contrary conclusions remain pieces of a disputed account rather than final findings of guilt or justification.
Author note: Last updated Sept. 8, 2026.