(concurring specially).
Although I agree with the conclusion reached, I feel compelled to state the reasons, as I see them, for what is decided.
Our statute, Minn. St. 629.34, merely adopts the traditional “in his presence,” or within-his-view, requirement for nonfelony arrests without a warrant.
While there can be no doubt under the facts and circumstances of this case that the arresting officers had reasonable cause to believe that a public offense was being committed by one or all of the occupants of the automobile, it was impossible for the officers to view its commission through their sense of sight until after the arrest and therefore the offense was not committed in the presence of the arresting officers within the contemplation of our statute. State v. Pluth, 157 Minn. 145, 195 N. W. 789.
Had the possession of LSD been a felony under our statutes, the requirements of both § 629.34 and the Fourth Amendment guaranties against unreasonable searches and seizures would have been met, even though defendant was not subsequently *40charged with a felony. State v. Morales, 286 Minn. 539, 176 N. W. (2d) 104.
However desirable it may be to permit warrantless arrests upon reasonable cause in misdemeanant drug cases because of the risk that the person believed to be in possession of drugs will escape apprehension or because of injury to himself or others (see, e. g., A. L. I. Model Code of Pre-Arraignment Procedure [Tentative Draft No. 2, April 15, 1969] § 3.01 and Commentary on art. 3) or because of the lack of time or availability of a magistrate to secure a warrant, our statute simply does not authorize a warrantless arrest for a nonfelony offense under such circumstances. The problem of “modernizing” our statute with respect to arrests without a warrant for petty offenses without imposing undue restraints upon individual liberties is not, I suggest, of easy solution.