NE: Automobile exception depends upon its mobility, not on def’s ability to move it

The automobile depends only on the mobility of the vehicle and not on whether defendant could be the one moving it. Even if he’s in custody, the vehicle is still movable. State v. Rocha, 295 Neb. 716, 2017 Neb. LEXIS 18 (Feb. 3, 2017)

To the extent that Rocha argues that the “exigent circumstance” of a readily mobile vehicle and probable cause are the requirements of the automobile exception, we agree. To the extent that Rocha argues that any additional showing of exigent circumstances is required, such as a showing that it was impracticable for the police to obtain a warrant under the circumstances, we disagree.

Rocha’s argument seems to be premised on a very narrow application of the ready mobility requirement. He argues that “because [Rocha] was incapable of moving the [vehicle] or destroying evidence, officers should have obtained a warrant before searching the vehicle.” This argument focuses on Rocha’s practical ability to move the vehicle in light of his arrest rather than on the inherent mobility of the vehicle as a functioning automobile.

Recently in Alarcon-Chavez, we analyzed the ready mobility requirement, concluding that “[t]he vehicle was operational and therefore readily movable” even though the defendant had already been arrested and presumably did not have access to the vehicle.

Other state and federal courts have considered the ready mobility requirement and have generally focused the inquiry on the inherent mobility of the vehicle rather than whether the defendant or others actually had the ability to move the vehicle at the time of the search. …