State v. Donaldson

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Traffic Infractions
  • Date Filed: 04-27-2022
  • Case #: A174173
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Tookey, P.J. for the Court, Aoyagi, J., & Armstrong, S.J.
  • Full Text Opinion

“A person commits the offense of failure to yield to an emergency vehicle or ambulance if an ambulance or emergency vehicle that is using a visual or audible signal in a manner described under ORS 820.300 and 820.320 approaches the vehicle the person is operating and the person does not do all of the following: (a) yield the right of way to the ambulance or emergency vehicle; (b) immediately drive to a position as near as possible and parallel to the right-hand edge or curb of the roadway clear of any intersection; (c) stop and remain in such position until the emergency vehicle or ambulance has passed.” ORS 811.145.

Defendant was convicted for failure to yield to an emergency vehicle under ORS 811.145 after a traffic stop where she drove about 1.5 miles and passed another vehicle before stopping as she was being pulled over. Defendant assigns error to this conviction, arguing that because the officer intended to stop her, not pass her, the statute’s requirement to yield is inapplicable. “A person commits the offense of failure to yield to an emergency vehicle or ambulance if an ambulance or emergency vehicle that is using a visual or audible signal in a manner described under ORS 820.300 and 820.320 approaches the vehicle the person is operating and the person does not do all of the following: (a) yield the right of way to the ambulance or emergency vehicle; (b) immediately drive to a position as near as possible and parallel to the right-hand edge or curb of the roadway clear of any intersection; (c) stop and remain in such position until the emergency vehicle or ambulance has passed.” ORS 811.145. The Court determined that the legislature intended this offense to apply to all motorists, including those who are or might be the subject of a traffic stop, because of the statute’s text and lack of explicit exceptions. Therefore, the trial court did not err in convicting Defendant. Affirmed. 

Advanced Search


Back to Top