DES MOINES (AP) - The Iowa Court of Appeals on Wednesday reversed a ruling in a case involving a police chief and a woman who smelled like marijuana.

The appeals court overturned a lower court's ruling that granted a motion by defendant Lysa Fisk to suppress evidence obtained as a result of a search warrant. Fisk was charged with possession of a controlled substance but later claimed probable cause did not exist for the search.

According to court records, Tama Police Chief Daniel Wilkens went to Fisk's apartment building Dec. 1, 2006, on a complaint of a vehicle left in the street. He rang Fisk from the foyer intercom and asked to visit her apartment after learning the car was registered in her name.

Fisk refused but agreed to meet Wilkens in the foyer. When she arrived, Wilkens claims he detected "a strong odor of burnt marijuana," according to court records.

Wilkens got a key to the apartment complex after his conversation with Fisk. He said he could no longer smell marijuana when he returned to the foyer and he could not detect an odor of marijuana in hallways.

Wilkens applied for a search warrant on the belief that the defendant had been smoking marijuana in her apartment. In the warrant application, he said he believed grounds existed for the search "due to the events that occurred that morning" and because Fisk had a previous conviction for a controlled substance.

Court records show during the search Wilkens found several pipes and a tin box containing marijuana.

Fisk argued in her motion the odor in the foyer wasn't an adequate connection that marijuana would be found in her apartment. She said because the odor was in a public area, the scent could have come from any of the apartments.

The Tama County District Court granted Fisk's motion to suppress the evidence. The state then filed a motion for discretionary review, and it was granted by the Iowa Supreme Court, which stayed the district court proceedings.

In reviewing the case, the appeals court found probable cause existed for the search.

The case was sent back to district court for further proceedings.