The opinion
ROSSMAN, J.,
specially concurring.
Although I agree with the majority’s discussion of the first issue, i.e., whether the police lawfully drew blood from the unconscious defendant, I feel compelled to write separately on the lawfulness of testing the blood for alcohol. This case was remanded for reconsideration in the light of State v. Owens, 302 Or 196 , 729 P2d 524 (1986). I believe that we must read Owens in conjunction with its companion cases, which were decided the same day: State v. Westlund, 302 Or 225 , 729 P2d 541 (1986), State v. Forseth, 302 Or 233 , 729 P2d 545 (1986), and State v. Herbert, 302 Or 237 , 729 P2d 547 (1986). The simple rule that can be distilled from the four cases read together is that, whenever the police lawfully seize and have in their possession a container that they have probable cause to believe contains evidence of a crime, they have a right to open it, examine the contents and to subject the contents to confirmatory testing without a warrant. Accordingly, I would reach the same result as the majority, but by a more direct path.