The court affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s ruling denying a motion to suppress evidence, and remanded for further proceedings. The first question raised was whether when investigating a loud party, the police could search the defendant’s cabin as part of a protective sweep after arresting several teenagers in front of the cabin for alcohol and marijuana possession. The individuals originally would not come out, but eventually did so at the request of a woman who was with them. She told the officers that no one else was in the cabin. The officers called the prosecutor to see if they could get a warrant. The prosecutor said a warrant could not be obtained. The officers then conducted a “protective sweep” of the cabin, finding more evidence. The appellate court held that this search was not justified by exigent circumstances. The officers did not establish grounds for believing that additional persons were inside, and the fact that they had time to call the prosecutor prior to the sweep, eliminated the exigency.