for “caretaking” purposes, Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433, 447-48, 93 S.Ct. 2523, 37 L.Ed.2d 706 (1973). 328 F.3d at 1241. In United States v. Herrera, 444 F.3d 1238 (10th Cir.2006), a police officer seized a commercial vehicle that he mistakenly believed was pervasively regulated. See id. at 1241. In clarifying the correct premise of an administrative search, the Tenth Circuit stated: “An administrative search is ... premised on the individual subject to the warrantless seizure and search knowingly and voluntarily engaging in a pervasively regulated business, and on the existence of a statutory scheme that puts that individual on notice that he will be subject to warrant-less administrative seizures and searches.” Id. at 1246 (internal quotations and citati 3, 707-708 (Ark. 1986) (<HOLDING>). The Tenth Circuit ultimately held that
holding that a statute that arguably authorized random stops of motor carriers could not be read to authorize random stops of any motor vehicle merely to determine whether the detainees belonged to the regulated class holding that a timely petition for administrative review stops the running of the statute of limitations holding that a summons directed to the commissioner of motor vehicles was defective process as against a nonresident defendant in an action arising out of operation of a motor vehicle in this state holding that the sensible and popular understanding of what a motor vehicle accident entails necessarily involves the motor vehicle being operated as a motor vehicle  holding that the statutory definition of motor vehicle is not controlling