In People v. Toure (2015) 232 Cal.App.4th 1096, the court held that a nonconsensual, warrantless blood draw was proper under the Fourth Amendment because it was justified by exigent circumstances. (Toure, supra, 232 Cal.App.4th at p. 1105.) In that case, there was a traffic accident in which at least one person sustained injuries, the collision was spread out over approximately 2,000 feet, the defendant was combative at the scene, which delayed officers from investigating the accident, he prevented officers from conducting field sobriety tests, and he refused to provide officers with information about when he had stopped drinking. (Id. at p. 1104.) The amount of time it took officers to conduct their investigation and to subdue the defendant threatened the destruction of evidence. (Id. at pp. 1104-1105.) The court concluded that the finding of an exigency was not based solely on the natural dissipation of alcohol in the blood, rather it was established by the totality of the circumstances and therefore the blood draw was justified. (Id. at p. 1105.)