City of Bellingham Hearing Examiner

The City of Bellingham Hearing Examiner conducted a vehicle impound appeal hearing for Jessica Decker, who challenged both the validity of the February 27, 2025 impound of her 1998 Chevrolet motorhome and the associated towing and storage fees. Decker, who lives in the RV as her primary residence, argued that she had requested and believed she received a 24-hour parking extension from the city, but the vehicle was towed before the extension period expired. The case revealed a communication breakdown between Decker and city parking enforcement. Decker testified that she called the city requesting a 24-hour extension and spoke with Parking Code Compliance Officer Stephanie Mays, who told her she had until Friday to move the vehicle. However, the city towed the motorhome on Thursday. Mays testified that during their conversation, they discussed the timeline but that no formal extension was granted. The hearing highlighted significant legal issues regarding vehicle impounds when the vehicle serves as someone's primary residence. City Attorney Matthew Stamps referenced the Seattle v. Long court case, which provides constitutional protections for indigent vehicle owners and those living in their vehicles. Under this precedent, if a vehicle owner can demonstrate they are indigent and that the vehicle is their primary residence, fees may be reduced or eliminated and the vehicle cannot be sold or held as collateral for unpaid fees. Decker's motorhome had been cited 40 times since November 2023 for parking violations, indicating a long-standing pattern of non-compliance with the city's 72-hour parking rule. The towing operator described the vehicle as "very unsafe" with bad tires, no registration, and structural modifications including a wood stove that created a hole through the middle. At the time of the hearing, towing and storage fees totaled $5,709.42, accumulating at $178 per day. The city indicated willingness to work within the constitutional framework established by Seattle v. Long, suggesting fees could be reduced for indigent vehicle owners and that the vehicle could be released if it serves as someone's primary residence.

This was an appeal hearing with no formal votes taken. The hearing examined: - **Validity of February 27, 2025 impound** - City parking enforcement impounded the motorhome after 72-hour notice period expired - **Towing and storage fees totaling $5,709.42** - Challenged by appellant as excessive given her indigent status and the vehicle serving as her primary residence - **Constitutional protections under Seattle v. Long** - City acknowledged potential relief for indigent vehicle owners whose vehicles serve as primary residences - **Proposed 72-hour redemption period** - City Attorney requested time limit for vehicle retrieval if release is ordered **Staff recommendation:** City parking enforcement followed standard procedures for 72-hour violation enforcement **Hearing Examiner action:** Decision reserved, to be issued within 10 business days (by April 2, 2025, but expedited given accumulating storage fees)

**Jessica Decker, on the extension request:** "She said that no, it doesn't, as far as she knows that there's the only thing I'd have to worry about is the cleanup crew picking up litter coming by, and she's like you have. You have until Thursday. And she's like, well. actually, you have until Friday now to movie Ivy." **Jessica Decker, on her housing situation:** "Yes, because it's my homestead. It's where it's my home. and I'm I'm I don't have a job right now, and I have food stamps. I I couldn't. I like to. It's it's not possible for me to pay them, you know." **Chris Heston, on vehicle condition:** "From what I understand, the vehicle is not operable. and to be very honest and upfront, I don't know if it's my place or not. It's very unsafe. The tires are really bad. It's not licensed. There is like, I said, a hole through the middle of it, where they put a fireplace." **Matthew Stamps, on constitutional protections:** "So the the 2 things that come out of that case, I think, are that well, the one thing I guess. Well, 2 things come out of that case. One is, if at the hearing the vehicle owner can show that they're indigent, meaning they don't have the ability to pay... under the Constitution excessive fines clause those fees should be reduced to either 0 or an amount that the judicial officer in our case feels are affordable." **Stephanie Mays, on enforcement history:** "This particular vehicle has received 40 since November of 2,023 notices, so I was very familiar with the process, and what needs to happen" **Matthew Stamps, on homestead protection:** "I think a fair, although it's not expressly stated in the case. I think a fair corollary to that is that the vehicle cannot be held as collateral for payment. Once the vehicle owner has appealed, and then at the appeal, establish that this is their primary residence."

## Meeting Overview At 1:00 PM on March 19, 2025, Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice convened a vehicle impound appeal hearing via Zoom for the City of Bellingham. Rice, an attorney who works on contract with Bellingham and nine other municipalities as a neutral hearing examiner, presided over case HE-25-VI-007 — an appeal by Jessica Decker challenging both the validity of the impound of her 1998 Chevrolet motorhome and the associated towing and storage fees. The hearing carried the weight of urgent necessity. Decker's RV, which serves as her primary residence, had been accumulating storage fees at $178 per day since its February 27 impound. By the hearing date, those costs had reached over $5,700. More significantly, this case would test the intersection of municipal parking enforcement and constitutional protections for indigent residents whose vehicles serve as their homes. ## The Pattern of Violations and Mounting Notices Parking Code Compliance Officer Stephanie Mays painted a picture of persistent violations stretching back over a year. The motorhome had received 40 notices since November 2023 for violating Bellingham's 72-hour parking rule on city right-of-way. Mays testified that despite this extensive history, the city treats all vehicles equally "whether they're lived in or not lived in" — they must be movable and must move every 72 hours. On February 24, 2025, following two citizen complaints about vehicles parked in the area, Mays photographed the RV and placed both yellow notice cards for the registered owner and an orange sticker on the vehicle's front window facing the road. The photographs she took showed items stacked against the front windshield, giving clear indication the vehicle was being used as a residence. "We put the sticker on the side facing the road so that way it was noticeable and could be seen," Mays explained. "We don't want it to be on the driver's side in this particular instance, because we didn't want it to be missed." The city's process allowed 72 hours from the notice for the vehicle to move at least one city block. When Mays returned on February 27 around 11:30 AM, the RV hadn't moved. She called for the tow truck. ## The Disputed Phone Call and Extension Request The heart of Decker's appeal centered on a phone conversation she had with city staff between the notice and impound dates. Decker testified that she called public works requesting a 24-hour parking extension — a procedure she said she was familiar with from previous encounters. "I talked to the lady on the phone who was in the office, I guess, and she looked at my license plate. And couldn't. She said that she didn't see any recent activity, for like needing to be towed like that day, or like within those 3 days," Decker recounted from her outdoor location, her audio cutting in and out as she stood in light rain. According to Decker's testimony, the office staff member said she would have parking enforcement call back. When Mays did return the call, Decker explained her situation and mentioned that a police officer had come by on February 26 saying the city was coming to tow vehicles that afternoon. "I said that was not true, because it was not subject to be impounded until 2-27," Mays testified about that phone conversation. "During that conversation we didn't talk about an extension or anything like that, she stated she would have it moved." But Decker's account differed significantly. She testified that Mays told her: "you have until Thursday. And she's like, well, actually, you have until Friday now to move your RV." Decker said she interpreted this as approval of her extension request. "She never said that the request was denied," Decker insisted. "And she, by her saying that I had until Friday, I thought that I assumed that that meant it went through. You know that I had another day." Despite this apparent miscommunication, the city proceeded with the impound on Thursday, February 27 — not Friday as Decker believed she had been told. ## The Impound Operation Chris Heston, owner of Heston Hauling, provided the mechanical details of the impound operation. His company was dispatched at 10:56 AM on February 27, arrived on scene at 11:32 AM, and completed the tow at 1:16 PM. The operation took longer than typical due to the motorhome's condition. "When we arrived the owner was there, but did not have any means to move the vehicle. It's non-operable," Heston testified. "It took a little bit of time we had to secure a lot of the parts on this vehicle and make sure we wouldn't be over height, since there's a wood stove through the middle of it." Heston's description of the RV painted a concerning picture of habitability. "It's very unsafe. The tires are really bad. It's not licensed. There is like, I said, a hole through the middle of it, where they put a fireplace," he testified. When his crew opened the door to conduct the required inventory, "it was full of wood. And we didn't really go any further. There's no kitchen, no bathroom that we could... we just opened the door and looked and just closed it at that point and said, No, we're not getting in this thing." Heston's voice carried genuine concern as he concluded: "It's very scary, very sad, is where I would leave it." Despite the RV's condition, Decker had been cooperative during the impound. "I did do my best to make it easier for the tow truck to take my stuff," she testified. "I went inside and popped the e-brake, and cleared the area around it and all that. I didn't. I cooperated the best I could." ## The Constitutional Questions City Attorney Matt Stamps introduced the legal framework that would govern the hearing's outcome, citing Seattle v. Long, a Washington state case addressing the rights of indigent people living in their vehicles. The case, Stamps explained, establishes two key principles: first, that if a vehicle owner can demonstrate indigence at a hearing, excessive fines clause protections under the Constitution may require fees to be reduced to zero or an affordable amount. Second, if the vehicle serves as someone's primary residence, the tow operator cannot sell the vehicle to recoup fees, and by extension, cannot hold it as collateral for payment. "Those are determinations that are to be made after the fact. At a... before a tribunal like this one," Stamps clarified, emphasizing that parking enforcement officers cannot make these constitutional determinations on the street. When Stamps questioned Decker about her living situation, the stakes became clear: "Are you living in that motor home, or were you prior to being towed?" he asked. "Yes," Decker replied. "Do you have any other residents? A home?" "Oh, no no other home, no." Decker explained that while she had a mailing address on Harksville Road, it belonged to a friend and she didn't live there. The RV was her only residence. ## The Financial Impossibility By the hearing date, the towing and storage fees had become astronomical for someone in Decker's situation. Heston calculated the mounting costs: two hours of towing at $839 per hour ($1,678), plus 20 days of storage at $178 per day ($3,560), totaling $5,709.42 with tax. "It's my homestead. It's where it's my home," Decker testified about why she was challenging the fees. "And I'm I don't have a job right now, and I have food stamps. I I couldn't. I like to. It's it's not possible for me to pay them, you know. Anything, really." This financial impossibility would prove central to the constitutional analysis Hearing Examiner Rice would need to conduct. ## The Delayed Appeal and Systemic Challenges Decker had not filed her appeal until March 11 — two weeks after the impound. When questioned about the delay, she explained the bureaucratic obstacles she faced while homeless. "I went to take it to municipal court, but it was closed, and so we brought it into the City Hall. But they didn't turn it in there, and was assured, reassured, that it would be put on the hearing hearing Examiner your desk, I guess. But then I got an email saying that I that more paperwork was needed. Because I didn't include the fine or the fee of $83." The delay meant additional storage fees accumulating daily. Decker's explanation revealed the catch-22 facing homeless individuals trying to navigate legal processes: "It was just me trying to get everything together and dealing with being out here in the streets. And all that... I I wasn't sure what to. I haven't had legal advice or anything, either." ## The Path Forward and Release Conditions Despite the RV's poor condition, Decker maintained she had arrangements to remove it if given the opportunity. She had friends who could help tow it with an Avalanche truck to private property on Harksville Road in Ferndale. "I have people that would help me there to tow it out of there, and and I have a place that I would be putting it here in Ferndale," she testified. "So it would kind of actually help that. It's over here already." Stamps, acknowledging the possibility of relief under Seattle v. Long, requested that any order allowing redemption include a 72-hour time limit for removal, given the daily storage costs continuing to accrue. Heston added a cautionary note about the destination, warning that the Harksville address appeared to be in a private community under his company's impound contracts. "If it does go back out on the road, it ends up on the property itself... if it's on the road in any way, we're going to be back here again the next day." ## The Human Dimension Throughout the technical testimony and legal arguments, the human cost of the situation remained visible. Mays, the parking enforcement officer, took time to acknowledge this: "Jessica's been great to work with every time we've encountered her and talked to her so she's never been combative or mean. She's been very nice and pleasant, and I'm sorry that this had to happen the way that it did." Decker, participating in the hearing while homeless and standing in the rain, expressed similar grace: "I appreciate what parking enforcement, what Stephanie said... I know that she's just doing her job, you know." ## Closing & What's Ahead Hearing Examiner Rice closed the record with an unusual commitment to speed, acknowledging the urgency created by accumulating storage fees. While city code allows 10 business days for a decision (making the deadline April 2), Rice promised: "because there's a clock ticking here, and a fine that's increasing with every passing day. I will do everything I can to get this order issued as soon as possible." The hearing concluded at approximately 2:00 PM, leaving Rice to weigh competing interests: the city's legitimate need to manage parking on public rights-of-way, the towing company's entitlement to fair compensation for services, and the constitutional protections afforded to indigent residents whose vehicles serve as their homes. The decision would determine whether Jessica Decker could reclaim her only shelter, or whether bureaucratic miscommunication and mounting fees would leave her permanently homeless. The case illuminated the broader tensions between municipal enforcement and human dignity, between property rights and survival, and between systems designed for housed residents navigating the needs of those for whom a vehicle represents not transportation, but home.

## MODULE S1: STUDY GUIDE **Meeting ID:** BEL-HEX-2025-03-19 ### Meeting Overview The Bellingham Hearing Examiner, Sharon Rice, held an administrative hearing on March 19, 2025, to consider Jessica Decker's appeal of the impound of her 1998 Chevrolet Motorhome. The hearing examined both the validity of the impound and the associated towing and storage fees. ### Key Terms and Concepts **Hearing Examiner:** A neutral attorney who works on contract with Bellingham and other jurisdictions to make administrative decisions on appeals. The hearing examiner is not a city employee and serves as an independent decision-maker. **72-Hour Right of Way Rule:** A city ordinance requiring vehicles parked on city streets to move at least one city block every 72 hours. Vehicles that remain stationary longer are subject to impound. **Impound Appeal:** A legal process allowing vehicle owners to challenge both the validity of an impound and the associated fees before a neutral hearing officer. **Seattle v. Long Case:** A legal precedent addressing situations where people live in their RVs and cannot afford tow fees. It establishes protections for indigent vehicle owners and those whose vehicle is their primary residence. **Homestead Protection:** A legal concept that may prevent the sale of a vehicle that serves as someone's primary residence, even when towing and storage fees are owed. **Right of Redemption:** The legal right of a vehicle owner to reclaim their impounded vehicle upon payment of fees or through successful appeal. **Orange Sticker/Yellow Card:** Warning notices placed on vehicles that have been stationary for 72 hours, indicating they are subject to impound if not moved. **Class C Tow Truck:** A heavy-duty towing vehicle required for large vehicles like 40-foot motorhomes. ### Key People at This Meeting | Name | Role / Affiliation | |---|---| | Sharon Rice | Hearing Examiner (contracted attorney serving as neutral decision-maker) | | Jessica Decker | Appellant (owner of impounded motorhome) | | Stephanie Mays | Parking Code Compliance Officer II, City of Bellingham | | Matthew Stamps | Attorney, City of Bellingham Attorney's Office | | Chris Heston | Owner, Heston Hauling (towing operator) | | Christy Bowker | Hearing Clerk (mentioned, not present) | ### Background Context Jessica Decker's 1998 Chevrolet Motorhome had been receiving parking violations since November 2023, accumulating 40 notices over that period. The motorhome serves as Decker's primary residence, and she lacks other housing options. The city operates under a 72-hour parking rule requiring vehicles to move at least one city block every three days to remain legally parked on public streets. On February 24, 2025, parking enforcement placed warning notices on vehicles in the area. Decker called the city seeking a 24-hour extension and spoke with both office staff and Parking Officer Stephanie Mays. According to Decker, Mays told her she had until Friday to move the vehicle, leading Decker to believe her extension request was approved. However, the city impounded the motorhome on Thursday, February 27. The case raises important constitutional issues around excessive fines and the rights of people who live in their vehicles, referencing the Seattle v. Long precedent that provides some protections for indigent vehicle owners whose RV is their primary residence. ### What Happened — The Short Version The city impounded Jessica Decker's motorhome on February 27, 2025, after it remained parked in the same spot for more than 72 hours. Decker appealed the impound, claiming she had requested and believed she received a 24-hour extension from parking enforcement. During the hearing, city staff explained their 72-hour parking enforcement process and confirmed the motorhome had received 40 violation notices since November 2023. The towing company detailed the impound process and current storage fees totaling $5,709.42 as of the hearing date. Decker testified that she called for an extension and was told by Officer Mays that she had until Friday to move the vehicle. She believed this meant her extension was approved, but the city proceeded with the Thursday impound anyway. Decker also confirmed the motorhome is her primary residence and that she lacks the financial means to pay the accumulated fees. The city attorney referenced the Seattle v. Long case, acknowledging that constitutional protections may apply to reduce or eliminate fees for indigent persons whose vehicle is their primary residence. However, he emphasized this doesn't invalidate the original impound action. The hearing examiner will issue a written decision within 10 business days, though she indicated it would likely come sooner given the accumulating storage costs. ### What to Watch Next • **Written Decision:** The hearing examiner will issue a decision by April 2, 2025, determining whether to uphold the impound and what relief, if any, to grant regarding fees. • **72-Hour Redemption Window:** If the appeal is successful, the city has requested only 72 hours be allowed for vehicle removal from the impound lot. • **Future Parking Compliance:** The motorhome's continued compliance with parking regulations will be crucial if returned to Decker. ---

## MODULE S2: FLASH CARDS **Meeting ID:** BEL-HEX-2025-03-19 **Q:** Who is Sharon Rice and what is her role? **A:** Sharon Rice is a hearing examiner, an attorney contracted by Bellingham and 9 other jurisdictions to serve as a neutral decision-maker in administrative appeals. She is not a city employee. **Q:** What is Bellingham's 72-hour parking rule? **A:** Vehicles parked on city streets must move at least one city block every 72 hours or they become subject to impound. **Q:** How many violation notices had Jessica Decker's motorhome received since November 2023? **A:** 40 violation notices. **Q:** When was Decker's motorhome impounded and when did she file her appeal? **A:** The motorhome was impounded February 27, 2025, and Decker filed her appeal on March 11, 2025. **Q:** What are the current towing and storage fees as of the hearing date? **A:** $5,709.42 total, including $1,678 for towing and $3,560 for 20 days of storage at $178 per day. **Q:** What type of tow truck was required for the 40-foot motorhome? **A:** A Class C tow truck. **Q:** What is the Seattle v. Long case and why is it relevant? **A:** A legal precedent providing constitutional protections for indigent vehicle owners whose RV is their primary residence, potentially allowing fee reductions or vehicle release. **Q:** What did Jessica Decker claim about her conversation with parking enforcement? **A:** She claimed Officer Stephanie Mays told her she had until Friday to move the vehicle, making her believe her 24-hour extension request was approved. **Q:** Is Decker's motorhome operable? **A:** No, it's not operable and would need to be towed to move it. **Q:** Where does Decker plan to move the motorhome if released? **A:** To private property on Harksville Road in Ferndale, where a friend has given her permission to park. **Q:** What was the city attorney's position on fee relief? **A:** The city has no objection to fee relief if the appellant can prove indigency and that the vehicle is their primary residence. **Q:** How long would Decker have to remove the vehicle if her appeal is successful? **A:** The city requested a 72-hour time limit for redemption. **Q:** What safety concerns were raised about the motorhome? **A:** The towing operator described it as "very unsafe" with bad tires, no license, a hole cut through the middle for a fireplace, and lacking basic amenities. **Q:** What is a "right of redemption"? **A:** The legal right of a vehicle owner to reclaim their impounded vehicle, typically by paying fees or through successful appeal. **Q:** What warning system does the city use before impounding vehicles? **A:** Yellow card notices to the registered owner and orange stickers placed on the vehicle indicating it's subject to impound. **Q:** When is the hearing examiner's decision due? **A:** Within 10 business days (by April 2, 2025), though she indicated it would likely be issued sooner due to accumulating storage costs. **Q:** What documentation was admitted as evidence? **A:** The appeal request, emails from parking enforcement with photos, towing company invoice and photos, and hearing scheduling correspondence. **Q:** What did Decker check on her appeal form besides challenging the impound? **A:** She also challenged the amount of towing and storage fees. **Q:** How did Decker cooperate during the impound process? **A:** She helped secure loose items, cleared the area around the vehicle, and released the parking brake to assist the towing crew. **Q:** What happens if the vehicle isn't redeemed within the time limit? **A:** It can be disposed of under regular impound and junk vehicle statutes - sold if sellable, disposed of if junk. ---