of the superior court is AFFIRMED. 1 . AS 28.35.030(a). 2 . AS 28.15.291(a)(1). 3 . AS 11.41.200(a)(1). 4 . AS 11.41.220(a)(1)(B). 5 . AS 28.35.050(a); AS 28.35.060(a). 6 . U.S. Const. amend. IV; Alaska Const. art. I, § 14. 7 . 90 P.3d 156 (Alaska 2004) (construing AS 28.35.031(g) to include the three requirements outlined in Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 710-72, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 1835-36, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966): (1) pro The bodily. process that eliminates alcohol also provides exigent circumstances obviating the need to obtain a warrant prior to administering a blood test."); Gregg v. State, 374 So.2d 1301, 1303 (Miss.1979) (finding that an "emergency situation" existed because of potential for loss of "critical evidence"); State v. Lerette, 858 S.W.2d 816, 819 (Mo.App.1993) (<HOLDING>); State v. Ravotto, 169 N.J. 227, 777 A.2d 301,
holding existence of arrest warrant compelling case for finding dissipation holding that exigent circumstances were present because evidence of bloodalcohol content could disappear during the time necessary to obtain a warrant holding that once the scene was secure exigent circumstances no longer existed and the police were required to obtain a search warrant holding that exigent circumstances were created by dissipation of bloodalcohol content in time needed to obtain a warrant recognizing that  exigent circumstances do not excuse the failure to secure a warrant when those circumstances are created by government officials who unreasonably and deliberately delay or avoid obtaining the warrant