Hamel v. Johnson

I concur because the decision in this case properly applies the reasoning of the opinion of the majority in Jones *282v. Thompson, 156 Or App 226, 968 P2d 380 (1998), to these facts. I continue to believe that the views that I expressed in my dissent in Jones, 156 Or App at 233 (Warren J., dissenting), and in Payton v. Thompson, 156 Or App 217, 222, 968 P2d 388 (1998) (Warren, J., dissenting), are correct, a view that the opinion in this case simply reinforces.

Armstrong, J., joins in this concurrence.