(2001) (stating that the dissipating nature of blood-alcohol creates an exigency justifying a warrantless search); Commonwealth v. Anderl, 329 Pa.Super. 69, 477 A.2d 1356, 1364 (1984) (upholding war-rantless breathalyzer test as valid "either as a search incident to arrest ... or a search necessitated by exigent circumstances; i.e., the evanescent nature of the alcohol in [defendant's] bloodstream"); State v. Humphreys, 70 S.W.3d 752, 760-61 (Tenn.Crim.App.2001) ("Based upon the fact that evidence of blood alcohol content begins to diminish shortly after drinking stops, a compulsory breath or blood test, taken with or without the consent of the donor, falls within the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement."); Aliff v. State, 627 S.W.2d 166, 170 (Tex.Crim.App.1982) (<HOLDING>); State v. Bohling, 173 Wis.2d 529, 494 N.W.2d
holding that the dissipation of alcohol from a persons blood stream constitutes a sufficient exigency to justify a warrantless blood draw holding that independent of the implied consent law the fourth amendment requires an arrestees consent to be voluntary to justify a warrantless blood draw holding that on the basis of the totality of the evidence when viewed objectively we conclude that a reasonable persons consent to this blood draw would have contemplated the potentiality of the results being used for criminal investigative or prosecutorial purposes thus officer agostino validly obtained from appellee his consent for the blood alcohol test holding blood testing for alcohol content a search 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