the vehicle without more." Id. (quoting Labron, 518 U.S. at 940, 116 S.Ct. at 2485, 161, 163 (Ind.Ct.App.2002), as modified on rehearing, 767 N.E.2d 995, 996 (Ind.Ct.App.2002), trams. not sought (finding warrantless search of an automobile in apartment complex parking area, where driver was handcuffed and being questioned in police car, was justified because of "the inherent mobility of automobiles"). Some cases from other courts have declined to apply the automobile exception where the automobile is entirely immobile or is not situated for transportation. See, e.g., State v. Kypreos, 115 Wash.App. 207, 216, 61 P.8d 352, 357 (Wash.App.2002) (au tomobile exception did not apply to a fifth wheel trailer that was not attached to any vehicle so was not readily mobile); La (S.D.N.Y.2004) (<HOLDING>); People v. Carter, 250 Mich.App. 510, 515, 655
holding that search of car was not incident to arrest where arrestee had exited and locked car before he was approached by officer and then arrested holding automobile exeeption did not apply to warrantless search of vehicle where vehicle was not readily mobile because the vehicle was legally parked in parking lot occupants of vehicle were seated on a bench in the playground near the parking lot police officers surrounded the vehicle and the driver of the vehicle was handcuffed for safety purposes holding that a vehicle was readily mobile even though it was locked and its owner was in police custody because other individuals might also have access to the car holding that police officer could reasonably have impounded defendants vehicle either because there was no known individual immediately available to take custody of the car or because the car could have constituted a nuisance in the area in which it was parked holding that warrantless search of defendants vehicle was legal because defendants consent was voluntary even through he was in police custody at the time of giving consent