The opinion
TANZER, J.,
specially concurring in part; concurring in part.
I specially concur in part I, but I believe it is over-analyzed (or, perhaps, under-analyzed, depending upon how one looks at it) in the sense that there is too much said. Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 US 492 , 97 S Ct 711 , 50 L Ed 2d 714 (1977), is entirely dispositive. There is no need for further citation or discussion and I would say no more beyond the citation to Mathiason . Hence, I concur separately to indicate that I do not necessarily concur in the additional comments of the majority.
Particularly, I understand the necessity for, but do not join, the attempt of the majority to distinguish the troublesome language from its earlier opinion of State v. Paz, 31 Or App 851 , 572 P2d 1036 (1977) rev den 282 Or 189 (1978); whatever comfort that language gives defendant, this opinion takes away. These facts illustrate the correctness of my dissent in Paz, to which I resubscribe, which would have led the majority more directly to the same result without the necessity of wiggling away from precedential language.
I concur in part II.