Opinion ID: 2359155
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Dale v. State

Text: On October 4, 2005, Jimmie Dale drove his truck off the road and down a 100-foot embankment, seriously injuring his two female passengers. [5] A sergeant of the Alaska State Troopers, who responded to the scene, learned that Dale had left on foot. The sergeant located Dale a short distance away and believed that Dale had been drinking. [6] Dale was taken to a hospital along with his passengers, [7] and there a trooper directed the staff to take a blood sample from Dale without first obtaining a warrant. The test, taken more than three hours after the accident, revealed a blood-alcohol content between 0.07 and 0.08. [8] Dale was charged with driving under the influence, driving with a suspended license, two counts of assault in the first degree, two counts of assault in the third degree, and failure to remain at the scene and render assistance after an accident causing injury. Dale moved to suppress the results of the blood test on Fourth Amendment grounds, [9] arguing that the warrantless blood draw was not supported by exigent circumstances. The superior court denied Dale's motion, and a jury convicted him of all charges. [10] He was sentenced to 23 years and 40 days in prison. The court of appeals affirmed. [11] Dale then filed a petition for hearing, raising the issue of whether exigent circumstances always exist in DUI cases. We granted the petition and set a briefing schedule. After Dale filed his opening brief, but before the State filed its opposition, Dale died in prison. The State moved to dismiss the appeal, leaving intact the decision by the court of appeals. Dale's counsel requested that the appeal continue unless Dale's conviction was abated. We stayed further briefing on the merits of Dale's petition and ordered full briefing on the abatement issue presented by Dale's death, inviting the National Crime Victim Law Institute and the Alaska Public Defender Agency to submit amicus briefs. In addition, we consolidated the matter with State v. Carlin for argument, consideration, and decision.