The fact the car is mobile and susceptible to theft or vandalism may supply the necessary exigency. ( People v. Superior Court ( Rhinehart) (1980) 114 Cal.App.3d 264, 268-269 [ 170 Cal.Rptr. 639].) Although in some instances the presence of sufficient law enforcement personnel might negate the need for an immediate, on-the-scene search, here that fact — the presence of four officers — does not invalidate the search.
Given probable cause, there is no constitutional difference between immobilization of an automobile pending issuance of a search warrant (as defendants insist Parkinson should have done) and an immediate search. ( Chambers v. Maroney (1970) 399 U.S. 42, 52 [26 L.Ed.2d 419, 428, 90 S.Ct. 1975]; see People v. Minjares (1979) 24 Cal.3d 410, 418 [ 153 Cal.Rptr. 224, 591 P.2d 514]; People v. Superior Court ( Rhinehart) (1980) 114 Cal.App.3d 264, 269 [ 170 Cal.Rptr. 639].) The sudden appearance of the Jeepster at the Baker residence and its apparent operative condition supplied the necessary exigent circumstances for the application of the automobile exception to the search of the engine and passenger compartments.
The appellate court stressed the fact that few officers were present (two were present during the stop and arrest and handcuffing of the occupants; two additional arrived either before or after the search, and still two more arrived after the search). And in People v. Superior Court ( Rhinehart) (1980) 114 Cal.App.3d 264 [ 170 Cal.Rptr. 639] a trunk search of a disabled vehicle was upheld where the suspects were in police custody. Finally, in People v. Weston, supra, 114 Cal.App.3d 764 a getaway car was searched four days after a jewelry store robbery.