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.