State v. Wiggins, 270 P.3d 306

Police responded to a verbal altercation report in which one participant threatened to get a gun and return; defendant’s car was seen leaving the scene.
Fifteen minutes later, an officer stopped defendant’s car; he pulled into a private driveway and was arrested for a parole violation.
Defendant declined consent to search the car for firearms; his car keys were left with property owners for retrieval by his girlfriend.
Property owners and deputies waited about 25 minutes; nobody accessed the car during that period according to owners.
Deputies concluded probable cause to search the car and guarded it while seeking a search warrant; before warrant, the girlfriend arrived and demanded possession of the vehicle.
The car was searched and a loaded gun and ammunition were found; evidence was suppressed at trial, state appealed, and the appellate court reconsidered.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the automobile exception survive a break in contact and a delay between stop and search?	Wiggins argues the break/delay renders the car immobile and outside the exception.	Wiggins argues no exception due to immobility caused by delay and break in contact.	Yes; two requirements exist (mobile at first encounter and probable cause); delay neither collapses mobility nor defeats exception.
Was the defendant’s car mobile when first encountered by police?	State contends the car was mobile at initial encounter.	Wiggins emphasizes later immobility due to break in contact.	The car was mobile at first encounter; subsequent delay did not render it immobile.
Did probable cause exist to search the vehicle?	State maintains probable cause supported the search.	Wiggins argues probable cause is not shown given the delay and lack of immediate action.	Probable cause existed; warrantless search valid under automobile exception.

State v. Wiggins, 245 Or.App. 119 (Or. App. 2011) (pretrial suppression and automobile exception analysis relied on)
State v. Kurokawa-Lasciak, 237 Or.App. 492 (Or. App. 2010) (initially adopted a broader notion of mobility later reversed)
State v. Kurokawa-Lasciak, 351 Or. 179 (Or. 2011) (Kurokawa II; clarifies mobility and does not permit searches of parked/immobile vehicles)
State v. Meharry, 342 Or. 173 (Or. 2006) (vehicle mobility and exigency doctrine; ongoing risk from mobile vehicle)
State v. Kock, 302 Or. 29 (Or. 1986) (early framework for automobile exception principles)
Brown v. State, 301 Or. 268 (Or. 1986) (immediate search doctrine within automobile exception)