dissenting.
The circumstances here warranted the officer in believing there would be more marijuana in some of the places in the automobile where he searched. The search was "reasonably related to the offense which prompted the arrest.” State v. O’Neal, 251 Or 163, 166, 444 P2d 951 (1968). The result reached in the majority opinion is unsound and does not square with prior decisions. In Chambers v. Maroney, 399 US 42, 90 S Ct 1975, 26 L Ed 2d 419 (1970), the United States Supreme Court declared:
"* * * The right to search and the validity of the seizure are * * * dependent on the reasonable cause the seizing officer has for belief that the contents of the automobile offend against the law’* * *. (Emphasis supplied.) 399 US at 49.
«* * * [p]he circumstances that furnish probable cause to search a particular auto for particular articles are most often unforeseeable; moreover, the opportunity to search is fleeting since a car is readily movable. Where this is true * * * if an effective search is to be made at any time, either the search must be made immediately without a warrant or the car itself must be seized and held without a warrant for whatever period is necessary to obtain a warrant for the search.
* * * *
"Arguably, because of the preference for a magistrate’s judgment, only the immobilization of the car should be permitted until a search warrant is obtained; arguably, only the 'lesser’ intrusion is permissible until the magistrate authorizes the 'greater.’ But which is the 'greater’ and which the 'lesser’ intrusion is itself a debatable question and the answer may depend on a variety of circumstances. For constitutional purposes, we see no difference between on the one hand seizing and holding the car before presenting the probable cause issue to a magistrate and on the other hand carrying out an immediate search without a warrant. Given probable cause to search, either course is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. ’’(Emphasis supplied.) 399 US at 50, 51-52.
In State v. Emfinger, 6 Or App 328, 487 P2d 1393 (1971) , a police officer observed the defendant, a juvenile, drinking beer, motioned for him to pull over, checked his identification and verified that defendant was a minor, and observed a six-pack of beer in the automobile which he took *506into his possession. The officer then ordered defendant to drive to the State Police Office, where he made a further search during which he discovered marijuana. We held that the search was reasonably related to the offense which prompted the arrest and that the marijuana seized in the course of such search was legally obtained evidence.
Similarly, in State v. Head, 13 Or App 317, 509 P2d 52, rev den (1973), we held that under the totality of the circumstances presented, the officer had probable cause to search the automobile following defendant’s attempt to conceal a hat visible in the front seat containing marijuana.
In State v. Krohn, 15 Or App 63, 514 P2d 1359 (1973), rev den (1974) the officer observed a passenger in the automobile smoking a marijuana cigarette. We held that this gave the officer probable cause to believe that a search of the automobile would turn up additional contraband and that he was not required to obtain a warrant before making that search.
Again, in State v. Stacey, 17 Or App 662, 523 P2d 612, rev den (1974), the officer received a late night radio call about a possible theft from a vehicle. When he reached the area he was informed by witnesses that they had seen a person carrying something across the parking lot of an automobile dealer. One witness indicated that a van parked on the lot had not been there a few minutes before. The officer looked in the van and saw in plain view a cellophane bag he believed contained marijuana. We held that this gave the officer probable cause to search the vehicle for more narcotics, without a warrant, and that a stolen revolver discovered during the search was admissible.
The case at bar is distinguishable from Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 US 753, 99 S Ct 2586, 61 L Ed 2d 235 (1979); United States v. Chadwick, 433 US 1, 12, 97 S Ct 2476, 53 L Ed 2d 538 (1977); and State v. Groda, 285 Or 321, 591 P2d 1354 (1979), in several important respects. First, here, unlike in Sanders, a quantity of marijuana had been discovered and identified by the officer inside the car. Next, in Sanders, the container had been removed from the vehicle and taken under the officer’s control and was no longer *507mobile or subject to destruction. Here, the shoe box was still in the vehicle at the time and could have been quickly transported away from the scene. This case is squarely within the automobile exception announced in Chambers v. Maroney, supra. As the court said in Chambers, if there is probable cause to search an automobile it is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment either (1) to seize and hold the automobile before presenting the probable cause issue to the magistrate or (2) to carry out an immediate search without a warrant.
Based on the foregoing authorities I submit that under the exigent circumstances then and there existing, Chambers v. Maroney, supra, the search in the instant case was fully authorized and that the shoe box, was not a repository of personal effects coming within the protection of the closed container rule.
For the above reasons, I respectfully dissent.