Submitted July 15, 2014
Beaverton Municipal Court. UI20475312. Les Rink, Judge.
Baolin Chen filed the brief, Pro se.
No appearance for respondent.
Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge, and Edmonds, Senior Judge.
[266 Or.App. 684] TOOKEY, J.
Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for impeding traffic, ORS 811.130, a Class D traffic violation. Defendant argued to the municipal court that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of the offense, and he reasserts those arguments on appeal. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
In an appeal from a judgment involving a violation, " the standard of review is the same as for an appeal from a judgment in a proceeding involving a misdemeanor or felony." ORS 138.057(1)(a). When we review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence following a conviction, we examine the evidence " in the light most favorable to the state to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found that the essential elements of the violation had been proved by a preponderance of the evidence."  State v. Bainbridge, 230 Or.App. 500, 502, 216 P.3d 338 (2009) (stating the standard of review for an appeal involving the offense of driving through a safety zone, ORS 811.030) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted).
The record discloses the following facts. At approximately 3:00 p.m., on a summer afternoon, Kingsbury, a [266 Or.App. 685] motorcycle officer in the City of Beaverton's Traffic Safety Team, was traveling westbound in the right lane of a highway overpass, when he observed defendant's vehicle, a BMW, traveling on an exit ramp from the southbound highway. The BMW made a right turn off of the exit ramp and began traveling westbound down a road where there were two westbound lanes.
The BMW drew Kingsbury's attention because it " came to a stop, in the [right] lane of traffic, with its left blinker on." Kingsbury continued to focus on the BMW " because it wasn't proceeding down the road like it * * * should[; ] it was stopped with its blinker on."  The BMW had stopped in the right
lane and was attempting to move into the left lane. However, the BMW could not " safely move into the left lane at that time" because there were two vehicles in the left lane, also proceeding westbound. As Kingsbury observed, the BMW then started to turn in front of the first vehicle that was proceeding in the left lane. That vehicle " had to kind of swerve and slow, because it appeared that this BMW was going to pull in front of it." The second vehicle in the left lane also slowed down before proceeding by. In addition, there was a third vehicle on the road--this one in the right lane behind the BMW--also heading westbound. The third vehicle also had to slow " because of the BMW that was stopped in the right lane and not proceeding."
Kingsbury subsequently pulled defendant over and asked why he had stopped in the road. Defendant told Kingsbury that " he was trying to get over so his son could go to the bathroom." Defendant told Kingsbury that it was an emergency, and Kingsbury told defendant " that that was not a valid emergency to stop in the flow of ...