¶1specially concurring.
¶2As Justice O’Connell pointed out (and correctly, I think) in his dissenting opinion in State v. Allen, 248 Or 376, 386, 434 P2d 740 (1967):
“A violation of a minor traffic regulation does not subject a person in this state to the machinery of the criminal law. …”
¶3The offense involved here, hitchhiking, was also a minor traffic violation.
¶4For the reasons which were well set forth in the above opinion, I do not believe that under our Motor Vehicle Code the act of hitchhiking, without more, subjected defendant to booking-in at the county jail, a shakedown search and laboratory analysis of pills discovered in his luggage.
¶5Because defendant’s arrest and detention were unlawful, I believe the seizure of the personal items was likewise unlawful and should have been suppressed. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 US 471, 83 5 Ct 407, 9 L Ed 2d 441 (1963).
¶6However, in view of our decision in State v. Riner, 6 Or App 72, 485 P2d 1234, Sup Ct revieiv denied (1971), and the decision of the majority of the Supreme Court in State v. Allen, supra, I concur in the result in this case.