In State v. Cooke, 163 N.J. 657, 664, 751 A.2d 92 (2000), Justice Verniero, writing for the Court, reviewed numerous decisions in our search and seizure jurisprudence under the "automobile exception" and described certain of the factual scenarios establishing the required exigency. The Court need not review all of the cases because we are satisfied that the decision that comes closest to describing the present situation is State v. Alston, 88 N.J. 211, 230, 440 A.2d 1311 (1981). Describing the facts there, the Court concluded the warrantless search of the vehicle was justified: In Alston, the officers followed a speeding car. The passengers of the vehicle moved furtively, as if they were trying to conceal something. During a valid stop, the officer observed shot gun shells and a bag on the floor protruding approximately twelve inches from under the seat. The officer felt the bag and concluded the object was a shotgun. A further search of the vehicle revealed additional weapons. We upheld the search because the events leading up to the search were spontaneous and unforeseeable, and posed a potential threat to officer safety. Thus, there were exigent circumstances to justify the warrantless search. Cooke, supra, 163 N.J. at 668, 751 A.2d 92. The Court reiterated the circumstances that justify a warrantless search under the "automobile exception" as "unforeseeability and spontaneity of the circumstances giving rise to probable cause, and the inherent mobility of the automobile." Id. at 672, 751 A.2d 92.