Bellingham Hearing Examiner

**Nancy Witter, on the notification timing:** "We did not receive this notice until probably about the time the car was being towed. The postmark date on the card is November 12th. So it did not get postmarked until after the holiday." **Andrew Schutte, on legal requirements:** "The sticker itself is considered by the state of Washington to be sufficient reasonable effort to inform a registered owner that their vehicle is pending impound. The mailer itself is an additional tool for us to make an extra effort." **Nancy Witter, on the family situation:** "The car was parked in front of a family member's house while supporting that family member in an emergency situation. And it was not an unreasonable action by us." **Andrew Schutte, on public awareness:** "I think there are many people who are unaware of the requirement within Bellingham of leaving a vehicle in place for more than 72 hours... claimed ignorance of a law is not a defense for having committed an infraction." **Nancy Wi

**Meeting ID:** BEL-HEX-2025-12-10 ## Meeting Overview On December 10, 2025, Bellingham Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice convened a virtual Zoom hearing to consider an appeal of a vehicle impoundment. The case, filed as HE25-VI-045, was brought by Nancy Witter challenging the city's decision to tow and impound her vehicle, as well as the associated towing and storage fees. The hearing examiner, an attorney under contract with Bellingham and eight other Western Washington jurisdictions, presided over what would prove to be a straightforward but poignant case involving family circumstances, holiday mail delays, and municipal parking enforcement. The hearing followed a structured format with testimony from Andrew Schutte, the city's parking code compliance officer; Chris Heston from Heston Hauling, the towing company; and the appellants Nancy Witter and Christopher Lieb. What emerged was a case that highlighted the intersection of rigid municipal codes with human circumstances — a family using a relative's vehicle to help during a medical emergency, unaware of the 72-hour parking limit, and receiving notice of the violation only as their car was being towed. Rice made clear from the outset that the appellant bore the burden of proof to demonstrate error in the city's impoundment decision, setting up what would become a test of whether procedural compliance trumps compassionate consideration of circumstances. ## The City's Case: By-the-Book Enforcement Andrew Schutte, a Level 1 parking code compliance officer, methodically laid out the city's enforcement action. His testimony revealed a process that followed established procedures with attention to detail that bordered on forensic precision. The sequence began November 9th when a community member reported a black Toyota Camry with license plate CPT 3330 parked at the corner of Inverness Lane and Likely Drive, allegedly unmoved for ten consecutive days. "I responded the following day on 1110," Schutte testified, using the date format common in law enforcement. "I arrived at the location at approximately 1028 am. I found a vehicle matching the description in the service request. At which time I affixed a sticker to the window informing hopefully the registered on the vehicle that it was subject for tow and impound if left in place for an additional 72 hours." The violation cited was Bellingham Municipal Code 11.30.60 A25, which prohibits any vehicle from remaining in one place on a city street for more than 72 consecutive hours. But Schutte's enforcement went beyond the minimum legal requirements. He pulled registered owner information from the Washington State Department of Licensing website and prepared a notification mailer. Then, recognizing that November 11th was Veterans Day and city mail operations would be closed, he took an extra step that would become crucial to the case. "I took the extra step to use a pre stamped envelope or start mailer postcard essentially," Schutte explained. "I put it personally into a USPS mailbox that day on Monday, the 10th to ensure that it had as much time as possible to get to its intended destination." The officer's attention to documentation was meticulous. He photographed the vehicle from various angles, including detailed shots of tire valve stem positions that would allow precise comparison to determine if the vehicle had moved at all. When he returned four days later on November 14th — giving an extra day beyond the required 72 hours as a courtesy — everything matched exactly. "I compared the present state of vehicle on the 14th to the photographs I took on the 10th," Schutte testified. "Everything matched up directly. I also had the opportunity to speak to a couple of neighbors who were out in the area at the time. And they confirmed from their observations that the vehicle had been there for quite some time." At 11:00 AM on November 14th, Schutte called Heston Hauling to initiate the tow procedure, completing his role in the enforcement action. ## The Towing Company's Role: Professional but Costly Chris Heston from Heston Hauling provided straightforward testimony about his company's response. The tow truck was dispatched at 10:59 AM, arrived on scene at 11:31 AM, and completed the tow at 12:20 PM — an hour and 15 minutes of service time. "That put us at an hour and a quarter at $400 per hour under the RCW rate for 4655," Heston explained. "And that goes to our official fees, which are posted and determined by the state of Washington. As a class A truck at 400 per hour, and then compounded every 15 minutes from there." The total charge came to $600.05 after tax, which included the towing fee and half a day of storage since the vehicle was retrieved the same day. Heston explained that these rates aren't set by individual towing companies but are mandated by the state of Washington based on the consumer price index, applying to all registered towing operators working with the Washington State Patrol. When Hearing Examiner Rice asked why the tow took more than an hour, Heston noted the challenging positioning: "Looking at the photos, the only thing I can think is he may have struggled a little bit. Because the tires are cranked all the way to the right against the curb. And that tends to, you got to pull it a little bit. And you don't want to cause any more damage." ## The Human Story: Family Care and Unintended Consequences Nancy Witter's testimony revealed the human circumstances behind the impoundment statistics. Her family had been helping their niece, Robin Lieb, who lived at 1116 Inverness Lane, during a family medical emergency. "Our niece was going down to California to take care of her mother while she was going through radiation treatment," Witter explained. "She offered us the use of her car, since ours is obviously a little battered, in the event that we would be needing to take her, transport her teenage daughter to and from high school, to her tennis classes, to her tutoring lessons." The arrangement was practical and compassionate — using the niece's more reliable car for transporting her teenage daughter while the niece cared for her mother undergoing cancer treatment. The Toyota was parked in front of Robin's house, where family vehicles were normally parked. "The car has been in the neighborhood before," Witter noted. "We go over to her house fairly regularly. It's not a, you know, we, I personally completely unaware that you can't leave a car parked without moving for 72 hours." The timing proved particularly unfortunate. Christopher Lieb, Nancy's husband, picked up their niece from the airport on Friday, November 14th at about 12:15 PM, intending to return her car and retrieve their own vehicle. When he arrived at the house, the car was gone. "And he called me and said, the car's gone," Witter testified. "And I said, oh, I was looking at my informed delivery from the post office, which always comes at like seven 30 in the morning, which is not when my mail arrives and saw that on Friday, the 14th, we received a notice from parking enforcement." The cruel irony was complete: the family received the parking violation notice in their mail at approximately the same time their car was being towed. The postcard, postmarked November 12th, had been delayed by the holiday weekend. "So we did not receive this notice until probably about the time the car was being towed," Witter said. "And probably like I said, right around the time that the car was being towed, Chris arrived back at the house where the car was to drop her car off and bring our car home. And at that point, the car was not there." ## The Legal Framework and Its Limitations Christopher Lieb added context to the family's perspective, noting discrepancies in the official record and emphasizing the normalcy of their actions. "The car was left directly in front of 1116 Inverness, which is our niece's home, Robin Lieb," he testified. "It was in front of her house and, um, it seemed like a normal thing to do. An expectation that that might be a legal thing was not in, uh, in the realm of our, you know, being aware of." He also mentioned missing the window sticker during the rainy weather: "I know there was a sticker on the window, but it was rainy and stormy most days when I was driving past it to, uh, pick up or drop off Bernadette and, uh, just didn't look directly at the side of the car and notice it." When the hearing examiner asked about the widespread ignorance of the 72-hour parking rule, Officer Schutte acknowledged the reality while defending the city's position: "I think there are, there are many people who are unaware of the requirement within Bellingham or the, the prohibition of, of leaving a vehicle in place for more than 72 hours." However, he continued, "I don't know that any individual could be expected to be apprised of every single code law restriction in the location that they're in... claimed ignorance of a law is not a defense for having committed an infraction." Schutte also clarified the legal requirements for impoundment notice, citing RCW 46.55.085: "The sticker itself is considered by the state of Washington to be sufficient, uh, reasonable, um, effort to inform a registered owner that their vehicle is, is pending inbound. The, the mailer itself is, um, is an additional tool for us to, to make an extra effort." ## The Appeals and Arguments Nancy Witter's challenge focused primarily on the lack of timely notice. "My challenge to the fees is, first of all, it seems like an awful lot of money for the, for the fee, but the fact that we did not receive it before that date, I did not receive this notice and we're not given the opportunity to move the car is my challenge to the fee," she testified. "Because had this come the day before that car would have been moved." She also questioned the logic of the 72-hour rule itself: "What if you go on vacation and your car's on the street, your car's not going to move. That seems, I don't, I don't know how that gets worked around, you know... just the idea of I, who, you know, does everybody out there know that you can't leave a car for more than 72 hours?" In her final statement, Witter made an emotional appeal for consideration of context: "The context is important if the court has discretion to, you know, to see that. You know, it's not, it wasn't a situation where we just randomly parked the car on the street somewhere. The car was parked in front of a family member's house while supporting that family member in an emergency situation." She continued: "We were not notified of the situation until, you know, after the fact. And when we were notified, we acted promptly and went and got the vehicle right away and addressed the issue right away. So we, I think we acted responsibly in every way. And the end result of the situation as it stands now just seems unreasonably unjust in terms of us paying a penalty for, you know, providing support to a family member and parking a car in front of her house while she was gone." ## Procedural Details and System Limitations Several procedural issues emerged during testimony. There was a minor discrepancy in the tow form listing the address as "1000 Inverness" instead of "1100 Inverness," which Schutte explained as resulting from using block numbers and unfamiliarity with the area. He clarified that the exact address wasn't legally significant since the violation was based on the vehicle being in any one spot in the public right-of-way for over 72 hours. Witter suggested that phone notification might be more effective than mail, but Schutte explained that parking enforcement doesn't have access to phone numbers: "Unfortunately, we do not have telephone information for registered owners. We have a sort of limited access to Department of License records. And what we see is a record of vehicle registration... And we see a listing for the name of a registered owner and their mailing address." The hearing examiner noted that she had "the same thought many times myself" about the lack of phone notification options. ## Evidence and Record The hearing record consisted of detailed photographic evidence showing the vehicle's position and sticker placement, documentation of the mailing process, towing company receipts showing state-mandated fee structures, and the appellants' USPS informed delivery notification showing when they received the parking violation notice. Hearing Examiner Rice admitted all city exhibits and allowed Witter to submit her informed delivery documentation as Exhibit 5, noting that while the city had followed proper legal procedures, the timing of notice delivery was clearly documented. ## Closing and What's Ahead The hearing concluded with the record closing and Hearing Examiner Rice noting that her written decision would be issued within 10 business days. Initially calculated as December 24th, the deadline was extended to December 29th due to the city observing both Christmas Eve and Christmas Day as holidays. The case encapsulated a common tension in municipal government: the need for consistent enforcement of parking regulations to manage limited public space against the reality that many residents are unaware of these rules and may face genuine hardships when they're enforced. While the city demonstrated it had followed proper legal procedures, the appellants presented a compelling case about timing, notice, and the context of family caregiving that led to the violation. Rice's decision, due before the end of the year, would need to weigh whether technical compliance with notice requirements satisfied due process when the notice arrived too late to be effective, and whether the hearing examiner has discretion to consider the equitable circumstances that led to the violation. The $600 penalty, while set by state mandate rather than local discretion, represented a significant financial burden for a family who believed they were acting reasonably in a difficult situation. The case highlighted broader questions about how cities balance enforcement consistency with recognition of residents' circumstances, and whether current notification systems adequately serve due process requirements in an era of reliable digital communication options.