Maybe, maybe not.
It *might* depend on what the police say about their observations. Obviously, *you* don't think there were "exigent circumstances," but the officers' observations and the Oregon Court of Appeals' 1998 decision of State v. Jangala may disagree with you.
In any case, if you DO need a suppression motion, you'll need to hire an attorney. So, you should hire one at this point to get the best possible outcome in this case, regardless of whether a suppression motion is appropriate.
Factors might be:
1. Loud music. If there was no music, the atmosphere would be calm and would militate against exigency.
2. Loud noises and screaming. If no one was making loud noises and shouting and screaming, the atmosphere would be calm and would militate against exigency.
3. If no one notifiied the police, and if they were just driving by in a quiet neighborhood, the chances for suppression would be improved. However I suspect that someone may have reported alcohol being served to minors. If so, there is a real question about whether the premises could have been secure in the time required to have a warrant. A warrant may have been applied for and granted telephonically, however.
35 MIP's might translate into the same number of suppression motions unless all are before the same judge at the same time.
Were the homeowners charged with providing alcohol to minors? This would be the simplest and most direct case to challenge the search. "Standing" is gradually being downplayed, but a good prosecutor might object to a suppression motion fo reach MIP charge.
The other problem is straight evidence and runs conversely to standing. If a 17 year old is in a room with alcohol, is he possessing it? Were the minors interrogated? How was each one connected to "his" alcohol?
Some good local defense attorney will make quite a bit from this, both monetarily and in terms of publicity. And especially if he prevails.
Homeowner should hire a criminal attorney and have him gather all the evidence and give you an evaluation.
Curt Harrington Patent & Tax Law Attorney Certified Tax Specialist by the California Board of Legal Specialization PATENTAX.COM This communication is general information and not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. This communication should not be relied upon as any type of legal advice. Please note that no attorney-client relationship exists between the sender and the recipient of this message in the absence of either (1) a signed fee contract and (2) remission of an agreed-upon retainer. Absent such an agreement and retainer, I am not engaged by you as an attorney, nor is any other member of my law firm.
Loud party calls lead to MIP charges all the time. One visible beer can around a minor is probable cause. "Clear evidence" is not required, only probable cause.