to justify a warrantless search.” Id. at 492, 351 S.E.2d at 571-72 (citing California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386, 105 S.Ct. 2066, 85 L.Ed.2d 406 (1985)). Thus, “the inherent mobility of automobiles provides the requisite exigency.” Id. at 492, 351 S.E.2d at 572. In this case, the State met its burden to prove probable cause and the existence of circumstances to support the warrantless search under the automobile exception. During their investigation at the crime scen 475, 477 (1978) (finding probable cause existed to conduct warrantless search of vehicle based on Carroll doctrine where police stopped vehicle after receiving information from confidential informant that defendant was driving vehicle containing marijuana); State v. Hayden, 268 S.C. 214, 218, 232 S.E.2d 889, 891 (1977) (<HOLDING>); State v. Frank, 262 S.C. 526, 531-33, 205
holding that although the automobile exception is based in part on exigence where police have probable cause to search a ear they need not get a search warrant even if they have the time and opportunity holding that absent consent or exigent circumstances law enforcement officers cannot legally search for the subject of an arrest warrant in the home of a third party without first obtaining a search warrant holding warrantless search of defendants automobile four days after impoundment was permissible under requirements of fourth amendment and state constitution where officers had probable cause to search vehicle when it was impounded and that probable cause continued between the time of the impoundment and the search holding probable cause and exigent circumstances justified warrantless search of automobile where officers received information from an informant that defendants would be traveling in a vehicle containing illegal drugs and due to the lateness of the hour it would have been impractical to get a search warrant holding that a totality of circumstances standard was proper for determining probable cause for issuance of a search warrant based on information from an informant