City of Bellingham Hearing Examiner

The City of Bellingham Hearing Examiner conducted a virtual appeal hearing for Corey and Jamie Locke, who contested the impound of their 2005 Ford F-250 pickup truck and associated towing fees totaling $4,457.01. The couple, who have been living in their vehicle for two years and are currently unemployed and receiving food stamps, argued that the impound was improper and that they cannot afford the fees. The vehicle was impounded on March 26, 2025, after being parked on Lincoln Street for more than the city's 72-hour limit. City staff testified that the truck had received multiple complaints and previous notices since the beginning of the year, and that the Lockes were given eight days total time before the impound occurred. When the tow truck arrived, the couple was in the vehicle but it was out of gas and inoperable. A central issue emerged around whether the city should have accepted a "drop fee" of $250 to release the vehicle immediately rather than proceeding with the full impound. The Lockes testified that friends were present with gas and money to pay the drop fee, which would have allowed them to move the vehicle within minutes. However, city staff declined this option, stating it would take 45 minutes to fuel the vehicle and they could not wait. The hearing examiner will issue a written decision within 10 business days addressing both the validity of the impound and the fees. Under Seattle v. Long precedent, if the vehicle owners are indigent and cannot pay, the fees may be reduced or eliminated entirely, and the vehicle cannot be sold to satisfy the debt since it serves as their homestead.

**Pending Decision:** Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice will issue a written decision by April 29, 2025, determining: - Whether the impound was proper under city code - Whether the towing and storage fees of $4,457.01 should be upheld, reduced, or waived - Timeline for vehicle retrieval if fees are waived **No Formal Votes:** This was an administrative hearing with testimony from all parties, not a legislative body meeting with formal votes. **Legal Framework:** The case operates under Seattle v. Long precedent, which requires fee reduction or elimination for indigent vehicle owners whose vehicle serves as their homestead, and prohibits selling such vehicles to satisfy towing debts.

**Sharon Rice, on the hearing process:** "I can only consider evidence that is offered before the close of the record, and the record will end at the end of the hearing." **Corey Locke, on their living situation:** "We live in our home and live in our truck right now. It sucks. It's not really what we like to be doing, but it's what we're doing." **Stephanie Mays, on the drop fee decision:** "We opted to not do the drop fee, even if it was paid in that moment, because it was going to take an additional 45 minutes to get gas in the vehicle in order for it to move." **Matthew Stamps, on parking rule enforcement:** "The fact that they were living in their vehicle did not make the impound incorrect. Folks are still subject to the 72-hour rule, whether they live in their vehicle or not." **Corey Locke, disputing the timeline:** "It wasn't gonna take 45 minutes to an hour. It would have taken 5 minutes." **Matthew Stamps, on the financial impact:** "It's also unfortunate for the taxpayers of the city of Bellingham. That's who ends up paying this."

## Meeting Overview On April 15, 2025, Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice presided over a vehicle impound appeal hearing via Zoom for the City of Bellingham. The case, filed as HE-25-VI-008, involved Corey and Jamie Locke challenging the impound of their 2005 Ford F-250 pickup truck (Washington license plate D91248E) and the associated towing and storage fees totaling $4,457. The hearing brought together city parking enforcement staff, the towing company owner, and the appellants in a proceeding that would ultimately test the boundaries between municipal parking enforcement and homelessness. What made this case particularly significant was that the Lockes were living in their truck — it was their home, not just their vehicle. This fact would prove central to both their appeal and the legal framework that would govern the hearing examiner's decision. The couple, both unemployed and receiving food stamps, faced the loss of not just transportation but their entire living situation. The hearing followed standard procedure for impound appeals, with testimony from city staff first, then the towing operator, and finally the appellants. Technical difficulties with audio plagued the early proceedings, requiring the Lockes to disconnect and rejoin the meeting before testimony could begin in earnest. ## The 72-Hour Parking Violation and Enforcement Timeline The sequence of events began with complaints from the public about a blue pickup truck parked on Lincoln Street. Parking Code Compliance Officer Stephanie Mays testified that the first complaint came in on March 18, 2025, about a vehicle parked over 72 hours. A second complaint arrived March 20th about the same truck on the same street. On March 21st, Mays responded to investigate. She found Corey Locke sitting in the vehicle and personally handed him an orange 72-hour notice sticker. "This is a notice to move within 72 hours," she told him, explaining that if he had questions or needed an extension, he could call the number on the notice. The truck remained in place through the weekend, creating some confusion for the Lockes about whether the 72-hour countdown included weekend days. When Mays returned on March 26th at approximately 10:00 a.m. — five days after issuing the notice — the vehicle had not moved. She verified this by comparing photographs of the tire valve stems from both visits, a standard enforcement technique to confirm a vehicle hasn't been relocated even slightly. Senior Assistant City Attorney Matthew Stamps emphasized during the hearing that while the rule is called "72 hours," people effectively get much more time than that. "Folks effectively get like more than double that amount of time," he noted. "By the time you get to the by the time you're actually at the point of doing a tow a lot of times has elapsed. Folks have had a lot of time to come into compliance with city code." ## The Impound Scene and the Failed Drop Fee Request The morning of March 26th brought together multiple parties at the Lincoln Street location: parking enforcement, police officers for safety, the tow truck operator, and the Lockes with their friends. What should have been a routine impound became a tense standoff lasting over two hours. The Lockes were in their truck when officials arrived. As Corey Locke explained: "We were out of gas at the time. We had had a dead battery which we had replaced, and you know, tackled that. You know that burden. And then we were dealing with the gas, and we had some friends there that were going to bring us some gas, when everybody kind of showed up at the same time." The couple initially refused to exit the vehicle, leading to a confrontation with law enforcement. "We did state we were not going to get out and allow them to [tow] because we live in our home and live in our truck right now," Corey testified. "It sucks. It's not really what we like to be doing, but it's what we're doing. And so we don't want to give up our truck." Police officers ultimately told the Lockes they would obtain a warrant and arrest them for obstruction of justice if they didn't comply. Faced with potential arrest, the couple reluctantly agreed to exit the vehicle. During this standoff, the Lockes' friends offered to pay for a "drop fee" — a reduced charge that would allow the towing process to be halted if the vehicle could be moved immediately. The drop fee, set at $250, represented roughly half the cost of a full impound. A police officer initially indicated this would be acceptable, but when the matter was referred to Parking Officer Mays, she declined the option. Mays explained her reasoning: "We opted to not do the drop fee, even if it was paid in that moment, because it was going to take an additional 45 minutes to get gas in the vehicle in order for it to move." She noted that drop fees require the vehicle to be moved immediately, and she couldn't leave the scene until the vehicle was actually relocated. "If it just if we get the drop fee and we leave, and it's still there the next day, not moved. Then we have to go through the whole impound process again." However, the Lockes disputed the 45-minute timeframe. "There wasn't 45, and it wasn't gonna take 45 min to get gas," Corey testified later. "There's a chevron right across the street, and our friends like were had a gas can in hand, and could have ran right there right back, they would have been taken care of right away." The city did offer one accommodation: waiving the first 12 hours of storage fees since the Lockes indicated they would follow the tow truck to the impound yard to retrieve belongings. As Mays explained, "We offered to have the first 12 hours waived, which would have reduced the cost of the impound at that time right? And we did that as a city to help them out." ## The Towing Operator's Account Chris Heston, owner of Heston Hauling and Towing, provided detailed testimony about the impound process and fees. His company went en route at 9:29 a.m., arrived on scene at 10:03 a.m., loaded the vehicle at 11:15 a.m., and completed the tow at 11:36 a.m. — a total elapsed time that he rounded to 2 hours and 15 minutes for billing purposes. The prolonged timeline reflected the unusual circumstances at the scene. "The extra time is due to the occupants not willing to release the vehicle at the time," Heston testified. "The police had to talk with them and parking, and everyone to get them out of the vehicle, also taking time to have them remove the scooter and other equipment." The Ford F-250 was classified as a "Class B" tow, triggering higher rates because of both the vehicle's size and the equipment loaded in the back. Heston explained: "This was a 1 ton vehicle loaded. So it went under a medium duty rate, which is a classification B." The hourly rate for Class B tows was $484, compared to $359 for basic tows under the Washington State Patrol fee schedule. Storage fees accumulated at $150 per day, compounding every 12 hours. By the hearing date, the truck had been in storage for 20 days, making it eligible for auction the following day under state regulations. The total owed had reached $4,457. Notably, Heston confirmed the vehicle was operable. "We do have a key for the vehicle. They gave us the key. From what I understand at the moment, it is not [running] because it did not have fuel at the time... it sounds like it would [run with fuel added]." ## The Lockes' Living Situation and Financial Hardship The heart of the appellants' case rested not on procedural challenges to the impound, but on their dire financial circumstances and the fact that the truck served as their home. Corey and Jamie Locke painted a picture of a couple facing multiple hardships simultaneously. They had been living in the truck for two years, with no other residence. Their savings had been "all eaten up with my son's accident," Corey explained. "He needed 24 hour care, and it was eating up with FMLA. So we have been depleted." Both were unemployed and receiving food stamps as a married couple. The truck contained all their worldly possessions. "As far as the weight of the truck that's everything we own is in that truck. It's not equipment, it's simply our belongings, and it's limited to that pickup truck, and that's all," Corey testified. "So it's yeah. It's mainly clothes. So and we have a [tarp] to protect it from the weather." Since the impound, they had been essentially homeless, staying in different locations each night. "That's why we haven't picked up anything out of the truck, honestly, because we have nowhere to put it, you know. So wherever hasn't been the same place twice," Corey told the hearing. When asked directly about their ability to pay any portion of the fees, Corey was unequivocal: "Honestly, like we are not. We're not able to pay any of it. We would have to ask, you know, for, like that's why we're here to ask for help with the fees being waived, so because we don't have the capability." The couple had taken several days after the impound to understand their options and file the appeal. "We were just educating ourselves on the whole process," Corey explained. "I guess it took a couple of days of just not really like knowing what happened, how it happened, and just trying to regain our, you know, composure and like what to do." ## Legal Framework: Seattle v. Long and Indigent Vehicle Owners The legal backdrop for this case involved a critical Washington State Court of Appeals decision, Seattle v. Long, which established that vehicles serving as primary residences for indigent individuals cannot be sold to satisfy impound debts. Senior Assistant City Attorney Matthew Stamps directly addressed this precedent during his closing remarks. "Under the Seattle V. Long case, if if the vehicle owners are indigent, meaning unable to pay the tow fees, then the hearing examiner role is to reduce those or eliminate them altogether to the point of to where they're, you know, affordable," Stamps explained. "In this case that sounds like that would be 0. I would. The city's not opposed to that." Stamps continued: "What that also means is that if they're living in their vehicle at homestead means it can't be. It cannot be sold to satisfy the debt and so effectively they'd be able to redeem their vehicle." However, the city attorney was careful to emphasize that living in a vehicle doesn't provide immunity from parking regulations. "The fact that they were living in their vehicle did not make the impound incorrect," he stated. "Your folks are still subject to the 72 hour rule, whether they live in their vehicle or not. I think there's a misconception out there that living in the vehicle somehow gives people immunity from from parking rules. It does not." ## Repeated Violations and Enforcement Challenges This wasn't the Lockes' first encounter with parking enforcement on Lincoln Street. Officer Mays revealed that "this particular truck has received 3 notices along that street since the beginning of the year, and we've had multiple conversations with them." The couple had developed a pattern of moving their truck one city block every 72 hours along Lincoln Street, a long industrial corridor with several blocks before transitioning to residential areas. As Corey explained: "We weren't necessarily in that same spot for 8 days, but 72 hours. We move forward, and then we, you know, move back." However, this rotation system apparently broke down in late March. The photographic evidence showed the vehicle hadn't moved at all during the critical five-day period from March 21st to 26th, when enforcement action was taken. During the hearing, there was some confusion about the exact rules for vehicle movement. The hearing examiner sought clarification from Officer Mays: A vehicle can be parked in one block for up to 72 hours, then must move at least one city block (defined by cross streets), but can return to the original block after the 72-hour reset period. This cycle can continue indefinitely as long as the movement requirement is met. ## The Financial Burden on Taxpayers City Attorney Stamps raised an important policy consideration that often goes unmentioned in these proceedings: the cost to taxpayers when impound fees are waived. "It's an unfortunate situation for them, but it's also unfortunate if I could offer a comment. It's also unfortunate for the taxpayers of the city of Bellingham. That's who ends up paying this." With storage costs accumulating at $150 per day, the city faced a significant expense if the vehicle remained unclaimed. Stamps requested that any fee waiver include a strict 48-hour deadline for vehicle pickup to minimize ongoing taxpayer costs. The Lockes quickly assured the hearing that they could retrieve the truck immediately upon authorization, with friends ready to provide transportation and gasoline. This exchange highlighted the complex balancing act that hearing examiners must perform: protecting vulnerable individuals from losing their homes while also protecting public resources and maintaining the effectiveness of parking enforcement. ## Procedural Clarifications and Outstanding Issues Toward the hearing's end, Attorney Stamps clarified an important jurisdictional limitation that the Lockes needed to understand. The hearing examiner's authority extended only to the impound and towing fees, not to the underlying parking citation. "The 72 hour citation, meaning like the traffic ticket, that that's a separate deal. That's not part of what was the the appeal here today," Stamps explained. "Even if examiner rice reduces the impound fees down, you're still going to have that parking citation to deal with. Just so you're aware that that's not part of the hearing today." This meant that even if the Lockes succeeded in getting the impound fees waived, they would still face the original parking ticket through municipal court proceedings. ## Technical Difficulties and Human Moments Throughout the hearing, technical difficulties served as a reminder of the challenges facing people without stable housing in navigating complex legal processes. The Lockes struggled with audio problems that required them to disconnect and rejoin the meeting, used a shared phone that created confusion about who was speaking, and at one point held up a handwritten sign saying they had lost audio. These technical challenges, while minor in the context of the legal proceedings, illustrated the additional barriers faced by people experiencing homelessness in accessing justice and participating in administrative processes that affect their lives. ## Closing Arguments and Immediate Next Steps In closing, the Lockes expressed both gratitude and urgency. "I'm just thank you for your time, and you know we're just wanting to get this resolved and not take up anybody else's time with this, and hopefully get our vehicle back," Corey said. Their friends remained on standby with transportation and gasoline, ready to retrieve the truck immediately if fees were waived. This preparation demonstrated both the support network they had managed to maintain despite their circumstances and their commitment to complying with parking regulations going forward. The city's position remained consistent: the impound was procedurally correct, the fees were properly calculated, but the Seattle v. Long precedent required consideration of the appellants' indigent status and the truck's role as their primary residence. ## What's Ahead Hearing Examiner Rice closed the record and committed to issuing a written decision within the required 10 business days, with the deadline falling on April 29th. However, she indicated the decision would likely come sooner, instructing all parties to monitor their email for the hearing clerk's distribution. The decision would need to balance multiple competing interests: the Lockes' constitutional right to housing, the city's legitimate parking enforcement needs, the protection of taxpayer resources, and the maintenance of a system that doesn't incentivize violations of municipal codes. Whatever the outcome, the case served as a window into how homelessness intersects with municipal law enforcement, and how legal precedents like Seattle v. Long are reshaping the landscape of administrative justice for society's most vulnerable residents. The hearing revealed both the challenges facing people living in vehicles and the genuine efforts by city officials to find humane solutions within the constraints of municipal codes and fiscal responsibility. The proceedings concluded at approximately 2:00 p.m., leaving all parties to await a decision that could determine whether Corey and Jamie Locke would regain their home or join the ranks of the completely unsheltered homeless population in Bellingham.