under the influence of any drugs when Odom arrived, and nothing that Odom saw or testified to corroborated Fields’ mother’s initial report that Fields was agitated and beaten up. Further, the evidence does not support a conclusion that Odom was still investigating potential involuntary commitment because Odom was discussing voluntary drug treatment programs just prior to asking Fields about his prior legal problems. Thus, like the officer in Reed, while Odom initially responded to address a feared medical emergency, by the time Odom demanded the pill bottle from Fields, any exigency had clearly dissipated. Accordingly, since the reason for the feared medical emergency had been resolved, Odom was not entitled to demand that Fields produce the pill bottle. See Rolling, 695 So.2d at 293 (<HOLDING>); Reed, 944 So.2d at 1059 (requiring the
holding that once federal agents had exclusive control of a footlocker its warrantless search could not be justified by any other exigency holding that while search incident to arrest could not justify search in that case probable cause plus exigency justified search holding that an officer may not continue her search once she has determined that no exigency exists holding that once the defendant has submitted to the control of the officer and the process of taking him or her to the police station  has commenced his or her arrest is complete and he or she is in custody for the purposes of the escape statute holding officer may search vehicle for weapons if officer has reasonable belief based on articulable facts that officer or another may be in danger