The opinion
SCHWAB, C. J.,
dissenting.
I would hold that the police had probable cause to search the defendant for narcotics. The majority relies upon State v. Parks, 5 Or App 601 , 485 P2d 1246 (1971), to reach a contrary conclusion. The facts here make a much stronger case for the search than did the facts in Parks , which we characterized as presenting a “close question.”
In Parks the object which drew the police’s attention to the defendant was a pipe. While the police recognized it as a type of pipe commonly used to smoke hashish they also recognized that such pipes were commonplace and on occasion used for the smoking of tobacco. It is common for people who smoke tobacco in pipes to carry their pipes about with them in their travels. It is not common for people to carry spoons with them except perhaps when they are camping.
In Parks the pipe had not been modified in a manner peculiar to an intended use for illegal purposes. Here the spoon had been bent in a manner *389 making it suitable for the cooking of methamphetamine.
In Parks the police had no information indicating that the defendant had previously been involved in the use of drugs. Here they did.
In Parks the defendant was not at or entering a place where drugs were believed present. Here the defendant was.
For the foregoing reasons I respectfully dissent.