W.D.Mo.: Damaged and inoperable vehicle that ran into a building was “readily mobile” for automobile exception

Defendant’s car was still “readily mobile” for automobile exception purposes where it had been driven though the front of a building, was wrecked and had a flat and broken windshield. United States v. Scott, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66514 (W.D. Mo. March 13, 2017), adopted, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66304 (W.D. Mo. May 2, 2017):

In this case, Cpl. Coots testified that he labeled the car as inoperable because it had a flat tire and was inside of a building. Similarly, Officer Ehbrecht marked the vehicle as damaged on the tow form, specifically noting the damage to the windshield, the undercarriage, and tire. However, just prior to their arrival on scene the car was readily mobile because it had been driven into a building. Disregarding whether the Kia was readily mobile, it is undisputed that Scott had a lesser expectation of privacy in this vehicle. See Hepperle, 810 F.2d at 840. Further, there was no evidence that the car was “permanently immobile,” meaning that the automobile exception would apply. See United States v. Maggard, 221 F.3d 1345 (Table), [published in full-text format 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 11756] 2000 WL 680394, at *1 (8th Cir. 2000) (truck stuck in a ditch had not lost its inherent mobility and therefore the automobile exception was applicable). Additionally, as noted, the officers believed there was fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in the car because of the drugs found in Porter’s purse, which was inside of the vehicle, and the other observations and information described above. As such, Cpl. Coots and Officer Carney validly conducted a search pursuant to the automobile exception regardless of whether the car was operable at the time of the search. See Hepperle, 810 F.2d at 840 (concluding that a search pursuant to the automobile exception was valid when the functionality of the car was unascertainable by the officers because the Fourth Amendment “does not require that officers ascertain the actual functional capacity of a vehicle in order to satisfy the exigency requirement.”); Maggard, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 11756, 2000 WL 680394 at *1.