abandoning the truck. At this point, the deputies had no concrete information that Defendant was the driver involved in the accident, or even at home. Id. ¶ 43 (noting that the officers were unaware if the defendant was even in the home). {12} Even assuming the deputies knew that Defendant was the driver, they had no specific information that he was seriously injured and in need of immediate aid. See id. (stating that the officers’ information was insufficient where they “did not know the nature or extent of the injury” or even “whether he was injured). There were no obvious indications in the cab of the truck, such as blood or impacts to the windshield coming from inside, that any of the vehicle’s occupants were injured. See City of Fargo v. Ternes, 522 N.W.2d 176, 177-78 (N.D. 1994) (<HOLDING>). More importantly, none of the witnesses who
holding that the dissipation of alcohol from a persons blood stream constitutes a sufficient exigency to justify a warrantless blood draw holding that warrantless blood draw did not violate the defendants constitutional rights and citing as only exigency the fact that alcohol in blood is quickly consumed and the evidence would be lost forever holding that probable cause was clearly present justifying the taking of a blood sample without the defendants consent when it was established that the defendant was involved in an automobile accident and the police noticed liquor on his breath at the scene of the accident and at the hospital holding that one circumstance justifying the officers reasonable belief that a driver in an accident suffered sufficiently serious injuries was the presence of blood on the seat and blood mingled with glass on the dashboard and steering wheel holding that under the oregon constitution when a person consents to have their blood drawn and tested for specified substances the scope of that consent limits the scope of the states power to test the blood without a warrant