MANCHESTER — A highly publicized police sting that led to an Iowa university professor’s arrest, firing and public humiliation has ended without a conviction after prosecutors acknowledged a defect in the state’s grooming law left them without enough evidence to proceed.
Nathan Allen Hough, 49, of Dubuque, was arrested by Manchester police at approximately 11:30 a.m. Saturday, March 14, 2026.
Police announced that Hough, then an associate professor of psychology at the University of Dubuque, was accused of:
Grooming — Class D felony
Dissemination of obscene material to a minor — Serious misdemeanor
The allegations quickly attracted considerable public attention because of Hough’s position at the university and the graphic details released by police.
No actual child was involved in the investigation.
Officer posed as 16-year-old boy
According to police, an undercover Manchester officer created an account on the Grindr dating application and posed as a 16-year-old boy.
The profile reportedly listed the user as 18 but used an artificially generated photograph intended to make the officer appear approximately 16 years old. Police said the officer told Hough during their conversation that he was 16.
Investigators alleged Hough continued the communication after learning the purported boy’s age, sent sexually explicit photographs and discussed meeting for sexual activity.
Police further alleged that Hough requested several graphic acts, including asking the supposed minor to urinate on him.
Authorities said Hough arranged to meet the person at a Manchester park and traveled there with sexual materials. Officers took him into custody without incident.
Hough was transported to the Delaware County Jail. A judge set his bond at $5,000 cash or approved surety, which he posted on March 18.
University fires professor
The University of Dubuque fired Hough on March 16, two days after his arrest, citing concerns about student safety.
Hough had worked at the university since August 2025.
He later sought unemployment benefits. An administrative law judge ruled that he was eligible because the university relied upon his arrest but did not present sufficient evidence during the benefits proceeding to establish actual workplace misconduct.
The judge emphasized that an arrest and criminal accusation are not equivalent to a conviction.
That ruling did not determine whether the police allegations were true or false. It addressed only whether the evidence presented by the university was legally sufficient to deny Hough unemployment benefits.
Only grooming charge advanced
Although Manchester police initially announced two charges, Delaware County prosecutors formally advanced only the Class D felony grooming count.
The alleged dissemination of obscene material to a minor charge was not included in the trial information filed March 23 and was never carried forward in the district court prosecution.
Hough entered a written plea of not guilty March 25.
His case was initially set for trial May 20. After he waived his right to a speedy trial, the proceeding was rescheduled for July 15.
On June 12, public defender Leigha Lattner filed a motion asking the court to dismiss the grooming charge and decide legal questions surrounding the statute.
Fatal flaw in Iowa grooming law
Iowa’s grooming statute makes it a Class D felony to use electronic or written communication to seduce, solicit, lure or entice a child—or someone believed to be a child—to commit an unlawful sex act or engage in other unlawful sexual conduct.
The law defines a child as someone younger than 18.
However, Iowa’s general age of consent is 16.
Hough’s attorney argued that because the undercover officer claimed to be 16, the proposed consensual sexual activity would not, by itself, have constituted an unlawful sex act under Iowa law.
That created a critical problem for prosecutors: Although the grooming statute covers children younger than 18, it still requires the attempted sexual conduct to be illegal.
Delaware County Attorney John Bernau ultimately agreed that the state lacked sufficient evidence to support the charge.
Bernau described the situation as a “statutory defect,” explaining that the supposed minor’s stated age prevented prosecutors from establishing the unlawful sexual conduct required by the grooming statute.
Prosecutor asks judge to drop case
On June 30, Bernau filed the state’s own motion asking the court to dismiss the prosecution.
District Court Judge Thomas Bitter granted the request that day and dismissed the Class D felony grooming charge.
Court records state that the dismissal was without prejudice.
That distinction is important: Hough was not acquitted following a trial, and a dismissal without prejudice does not permanently prohibit prosecutors from filing a charge again. However, the publicly available record shows no pending criminal charge against him arising from the sting.
Hough never pleaded guilty, admitted wrongdoing or was convicted of an offense connected to the Manchester investigation.
Second Manchester sting case dismissed
Hough’s case is not the only highly publicized Manchester grooming arrest that recently ended without a conviction.
In July, prosecutors also dismissed the felony grooming case against Minneapolis resident Musa Eselby, who had been arrested after allegedly traveling to Manchester to meet an undercover officer posing as a juvenile.
As NIT reported, Eselby’s case was dismissed approximately two weeks before his scheduled jury trial.
The publicly available records in Eselby’s case did not disclose why prosecutors sought dismissal. Hough’s case, however, exposes a specific conflict between the wording of Iowa’s recently enacted grooming statute and the state’s age-of-consent law.
The outcomes illustrate the divide between an arrest announcement and a final court result.
Police publicly released Hough’s name, occupation and graphic allegations immediately after the sting. Three months later, prosecutors acknowledged they could not establish the felony offense under the law as written, and the court dismissed the case.
Hough is legally presumed innocent, and the dismissed allegations cannot be presented as proven facts.
CHARGE DROPPED