v. Burnett, 758 F.2d 468, 475 (10th Cir.1985) (automobile exception did not apply to a car that was towed and searched by the police the day after an arrest and was immobile because its engine was partially dismantled). But several other courts have found that vehicles temporarily in police control or otherwise not at risk of being driven away may still be considered readily mobile, so as to qualify for the automobile exception. These cases base ready mobility not on the immediate capabilities of an automobile but rather its inherent capabilities Seq, e.g., United States v. Watts, 329 F.3d 1282, 1286 (11th Cir.2003) ("All that is necessary to satisfy [the readily mobile] element is that the automobile is operational."); United States v. Mercado, 307 F.3d 1226, 1229 (10th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Vasquez, 297 F.Supp2d 696,
holding that there was probable cause for arrest where officers knew defendants had recently been with suspected drug dealer officers saw defendants car being maneuvered so as to indicate that surveillance had been detected and when officers approached car defendant attempted to place package under car and then pulled the package back inside the car and closed and locked the car door holding that the driver of a car who had permission to use the car had standing to challenge its search holding that appellants had no standing to challenge search of car because they had no ownership or possessory rights of any kind in the car holding that the automobile exception applied to a car that had broken down and was to be repaired during the night and operable the next morning because the car had not lost its inherent mobility holding a car was broken into or entered when defendant reached in through the open window of a car