## Meeting Overview On December 4, 2024, the City of Bellingham Hearing Examiner convened a specialized appeal hearing regarding a vehicle impound case. Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice, an independent attorney who provides hearing services to Bellingham and nine other jurisdictions, presided over the proceeding remotely. The case centered on Emily and Dylan Griffith's challenge to the impound of their stolen motor scooter, which had been recovered by police but towed before they could retrieve it. This hearing represented one of the more unusual vehicle impound appeals to come before the Bellingham Hearing Examiner—involving not a typical parking violation, but rather a stolen vehicle that had been found and reported by a good Samaritan neighbor. The case highlighted the tension between standard municipal procedures and the sometimes messy realities of property recovery, where timing and circumstances don't always align neatly with bureaucratic protocols. The absence of a City representative at the hearing—typically the Bellingham Police Department would send someone to defend the impound decision—was notable and would influence how Hearing Examiner Rice approached her review of the case. ## The Stolen Scooter Recovery Emily Griffith, the legal owner of the disputed vehicle, began by explaining the unusual circumstances that led to their appeal. Her motor scooter had been stolen from their Bellingham residence on August 7, 2024, and she had promptly filed a police report that morning. The scooter remained missing for nearly four months until December 4, when it was found less than half a mile from the Griffiths' home. "The scooter was recovered by the police, which we appreciate, and it was found less than a half a mile from our home residence," Emily testified. "Apparently it had been from the police report... in a Mira trail just left, and a neighbor had found it and brought it to their own residence, and then called the police to recover the stolen vehicle." The neighbor who discovered the abandoned scooter had made efforts to locate its owner, reaching out through social media posts that the Griffiths unfortunately never saw. This good Samaritan had brought the scooter to their own property for safekeeping before contacting police—a detail that would prove central to the Griffiths' argument that the subsequent impound was unnecessary and premature. ## The Critical Timeline The heart of the Griffiths' appeal centered on timing. According to the Heston Towing records and police documentation, Officer Dylan attempted to contact Dylan Griffith by phone during his work day, leaving a voicemail. The sequence of events that followed became the crux of the dispute. "The first time we heard that it had been recovered is when the police called my husband," Emily explained. "He called on a workday and left a voicemail which my husband saw... about 30 minutes later. And we contacted the police as quickly as we could, and he said that he had already initiated the tow." Dylan Griffith provided additional detail about their phone records: "The first call came at 12:04, the second call came at 12:05. And then the last call was 12:36, and we called back to the city at 12:39, and they said it was too late at that point." The timing breakdown revealed a narrow window that frustrated the Griffiths. According to the towing records, the officer had requested the tow at 12:13—just nine minutes after his first attempt to contact the owners. The tow truck arrived at 12:36, was loaded quickly, and the scooter was released to the Griffiths at 1:42, meaning the entire impound lasted only about 90 minutes. "We called him back within 30 minutes of the voicemail that we received," Emily testified. "We just feel like... the officer requested the tow only about nine minutes after he had called us, and we appreciate him attempting to reach us first, and we just feel like that wasn't a reasonable amount of time on a workday to get back and recover the vehicle." ## The Uniqueness of the Circumstances What distinguished this case from typical vehicle impounds was the context of recovery. Rather than a car illegally parked or abandoned in a problematic location, this was a stolen vehicle that had been secured by a helpful neighbor on private property. "Since it was so close to our home and it wasn't in an unsafe environment like at someone who had stolen it, it was just at a, you know, friendly neighbor's house... as far as we know," Emily argued. "I feel almost like it was an appropriate reason to just like leave it on a public sidewalk, or, you know, in a parking space, and just say it's at this residence. If it's not retrieved, you know we will tow it. It didn't feel like an emergency situation where it needed to be towed." Dylan reinforced this point: "If the moped was like in an unsafe environment, you know, it was actually at the place of the person who stole it, I feel like that is so reasonable to remove it from the situation, take it to the tow yard. I wouldn't want to walk into, you know, someone that actually stole it. But since... it was in a neighbor's residence that just recovered it from a trail, they were trying to do their best to help out the community." ## The Financial Impact Beyond the procedural concerns, the Griffiths faced a significant financial burden relative to their vehicle's value. Emily explained that she had purchased the 10-year-old scooter for $900 a decade ago, and now faced an impound fee of $489—more than half the original purchase price for a vehicle that had undoubtedly depreciated considerably. "The vehicle itself is not worth a lot of money. It's an old scooter. I haven't actually Kelly Blue booked the cost, but I purchased it 10 years ago for $900, and this fee is $489," she testified. "So it just is unfortunate, and you know, with the holidays, and we have a young child, we just thought we could go through this process and see if there was any way we can reduce the fee just based on... the wish that we had just a tiny bit more time to go recover it because we were ready. We would have picked it up." The couple emphasized they understood this was the standard fee structure and weren't challenging the rates themselves, but rather argued that the specific circumstances warranted more time before impoundment became necessary. ## Hearing Examiner's Approach and Authority Hearing Examiner Rice was careful to explain the limited scope of her authority in vehicle impound appeals, noting that her role was specifically to determine whether the impound was consistent with applicable city regulations and whether any fees charged were consistent with adopted rates. "The hearing examiner's authority by code is expressly to consider whether the impound was consistent with applicable city regulations... or it was not," Rice explained. "Also, if, in the instance where the fees are challenged, whether the fees are consistent with the adopted state approved rates or not. The hearing examiner doesn't have other authority in this context." The absence of a city representative created an unusual dynamic. Typically, the police department would send someone to explain and defend their impound decision, providing Rice with the city's perspective on why immediate towing was necessary. Without that testimony, Rice found herself relying solely on the written police reports and the appellants' testimony. "So typically, we would hear from city first. They sort of have a prima facie duty to show that the impound was consistent with city code," Rice noted before proceeding directly to the appellants' case. ## Procedural Questions and Evidence Review During the hearing, Rice worked through the documentation carefully, asking clarifying questions about the timeline and reviewing the police officer's written statement. The officer had noted attempting to call back three times, though the Griffiths' phone records showed slightly different timing than what appeared in some of the documentation. Rice expressed particular interest in understanding this case as her first involving a motor scooter impound, noting: "I'm just curious about, you know whatever might be particular to that style of vehicle in terms of impound... I mean, we normally have regular passenger vehicles. But once there was a school bus once there was an RV. You know, I learned things about... kinds of vehicles." The hearing examiner acknowledged that she might need additional information from the police officer who made the impound decision, potentially delaying her written decision beyond the standard 10-business-day deadline. ## Next Steps and Decision Timeline Rice informed the appellants that she was required to issue a written decision within 10 business days, making the deadline December 18, 2024. However, she indicated she might seek additional written testimony from the responding officer, which could delay the decision timeline. "I'm going to review this closely and determine whether I still feel like I wish that I had an opportunity to ask BPD questions, and so there's a possibility I may decide to do that and ask the officer to respond in writing to specific questions," Rice explained. "If I decide to do that, I probably... may not be able to get the decision out by the 18th." She assured the appellants that if additional officer testimony was sought, they would have an opportunity to review and respond to any new information provided. ## Closing Observations The hearing concluded with an acknowledgment of the unusual circumstances that had brought the case forward. Unlike typical impound appeals involving parking violations or abandoned vehicles in problematic locations, this case involved a recovered stolen vehicle, helpful neighbors, and timing that created a bureaucratic collision between standard procedures and common sense expectations. The Griffiths presented their case respectfully and thoroughly, acknowledging the validity of standard impound procedures while arguing that their specific situation—involving a stolen vehicle secured by a good Samaritan on private property—warranted different treatment. Their primary frustration centered not on the fee structure itself, but on what they perceived as insufficient time to respond during a work day to retrieve their recovered property. The absence of city testimony meant Hearing Examiner Rice would need to determine from the written record whether the nine-minute window between first contact attempt and tow request met the city's standards for reasonable owner notification, particularly in the context of a recovered stolen vehicle rather than a standard parking or abandonment situation. As the participants wished each other happy holidays and ended the remote hearing, the case highlighted one of the ongoing challenges in municipal administration: balancing efficient, standardized procedures with the messy realities of individual circumstances that don't always fit neatly into established protocols. The Griffiths' appeal represented not just a request for fee reduction, but a broader question about how government processes can remain both consistent and responsive to the human situations they encounter.