With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". warrant requirement did not apply. Regardless of whether probable cause existed that Myers's vehicle contained contraband, the ready mobility requirement was not met. When Myers's vehicle was first seized, it was not readily mobile. Myers was not stopped on the highway while driving his vehicle, nor was he inside or near his vehicle when it was seized. Even though Myers possessed the key to his vehicle, he was locked in a classroom during the canine sweep in the parking lot. Additionally, both police officers and school officials surrounded Myers's vehicle after the dog alerted to the presence of narcotics in his vehicle. Therefore, Myers's vehicle was neither readily mobile nor capable of being driven away. See Scott v. State, 775 N.E.2d 1207, 1210-11 (Ind.Ct.App.2002), trans. denied (<HOLDING>). Additionally, it was reasonably practicable

A: holding warrantless search of vehicle was improper where car was not stopped on a highway but was parked at a residence with no occupants inside or near the vehicle and capable of being driven away by the turn of an ignition key
B: holding that after making an arrest of the driver of a vehicle the police may search the passenger compartment of the vehicle
C: 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
D: holding that no privacy interest was invaded when the officers saw the defendants activities while he was parked in a tavern parking lot and seated in a vehicle with the console light on
C.