# A Car, A Sign, and a Storm: Vehicle Impound Appeal Over Marathon Parking The afternoon of October 10, 2025, brought a familiar scene to Bellingham's virtual hearing room: another vehicle impound appeal stemming from special event parking enforcement. Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice, conducting the proceeding via Zoom, presided over case HE25-VI-043, where James Lee challenged the validity of his 2015 Toyota Camry's impoundment during the September 21 Bellingham Bay Marathon. What set this case apart was not the routine nature of marathon parking enforcement, but rather the weather that morning — sudden windstorms that transformed orderly no-parking signage into scattered paper debris across downtown streets. The hearing would center on a fundamental question: when a temporary no-parking sign blows down in a storm, what responsibility does a driver bear to search an entire block for evidence of parking restrictions? Rice opened the proceedings with her standard explanation of the hearing process, noting that she serves as a contract hearing examiner for the City of Bellingham and nine other western Washington jurisdictions. The evidence packet contained 32 pages of documentation, including Lee's appeal, parking enforcement materials, police reports, and towing company records. ## The Marathon Morning Storm Greg Coulter, a Parking Code Compliance Officer with the City of Bellingham, painted the picture of that Sunday morning. The Bellingham Bay Marathon route included the 200 block of East Laurel Street, where 3,000 race participants would pass through twice during the 5K, 10K, and half marathon events. "On that 200 block of East Laurel, there are 11 temporary signs showing space closures from 3 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. on 9-21-25," Coulter testified. The signs were strategically placed on existing parking payment poles — the only available mounting points on a block without traditional parking meters. Then came the weather. "On the morning of the 21st, at approximately 1:45 AM, the weather turned from calm breezes of 5 to 7 miles an hour to gusts up to 30 miles an hour through 7 AM," Coulter explained. The timing was particularly problematic, as enforcement crews were scheduled to begin clearing the route around 7:30 AM. Recognizing the safety implications of cars remaining in the race route, parking enforcement coordinated with Lieutenant Dante Alexander and Officer Johnson to call registered vehicle owners. "They are able to clear about 50% of the cars from the route, by coordinating with Whatcom Dispatch and utilizing the police database," Coulter said. For the remaining vehicles, including Lee's Camry, impoundment became necessary. "Our thinking was that having cars parked in the route of that many racers would pose a very significant safety concern for the race, and the possibility of vehicles trying to leave while that many people moved through that block really was what led to the decision to go ahead with the impounds." The enforcement team arrived to find clear evidence of the storm's impact. The no-parking sign nearest to Lee's vehicle lay face-down on the pavement. "It was on the ground still. I flipped it over to show the no parking towaway sign. It was just face down on the pavement there," Coulter testified. ## Police Coordination and Additional Context Lieutenant Alexander provided crucial context about the morning's operations. As Special Operations Lieutenant responsible for coordinating with event organizers, he had worked with parking enforcement to establish no-parking zones well in advance of the marathon. "I arrived at about 6 o'clock that morning, and noticed that a storm had set in, and there were signs that had blown off in several of the blocks," Alexander testified. Despite the weather damage, he observed at least three signs still standing on the block. Alexander's team successfully contacted four vehicle owners, including one whose experience illuminated the timeline of the sign failures. "One of the restaurant owners I was able to contact was an old pickup truck... and the sign had actually blown on the tire, and so in communicating with him, I was able to contact him, and he had mentioned that he had parked late at night," Alexander explained. This detail suggested the signs had been properly installed and remained in place through most of the night, only succumbing to the storm that began around 1:45 AM. "So, to me, it kind of indicated that those signs had been up for most of the night, and the storm blew in about 1 o'clock, so I'm assuming that's probably one of the signs, and when the rain happened, that's when those signs went down." For Lee's vehicle specifically, Alexander's team was unable to locate contact information. "I remember running information for Mr. Lee's car. I wasn't able to get a phone number to contact him, and advised that to our traffic team." ## The Towing Operation Chris Heston, owner of Heston Hauling and Heston Towing, explained the practical challenges of managing multiple simultaneous impounds during the marathon enforcement. His company staged trucks around 7 AM and worked to clear vehicles before the race began. "We had a lot of vehicles that we impounded, so the times are not correct that are listed on the upper left," Heston testified, referring to the timestamping on impound invoices. "Normally the drivers are tasked with putting themselves en route, on scene, in tow, and then clear. We weren't able to stay on top of that. They were moving too many vehicles." To address this operational challenge while maintaining fairness, Heston's company implemented a flat-rate approach. "What we decided to do is just one hour straight across the board, which is the state minimum on charging for an impound." The total cost for Lee came to $710.14, including the state-mandated towing fee, half-day storage (since the vehicle was retrieved the same day), and an after-hours release fee for Sunday operations. ## Lee's Defense: A Night Out Turns Costly James Lee presented a straightforward defense rooted in reasonable expectations and practical limitations. He had been in downtown Bellingham for the Boundary Bay End Festival block party, followed by an evening of dancing around downtown venues. As the designated driver for his group, Lee was navigating unfamiliar territory while ensuring his friends' safety. "I didn't park until it was well after 2 o'clock in the morning. We were out that night for the Boundary Bay End Festival... We got back, and I parked there. I've parked on that street multiple times before. My sister-in-law lives in the apartments right around the corner from there," Lee testified. His account aligned with the weather timeline described by enforcement officers. "It was definitely raining and blowing at that time. I remembered it vividly, because I didn't have a sweatshirt with me, I was freezing." Lee, who lives in the Everson-Nooksack area, was unaware of the scheduled marathon. When he parked, he followed the guidance of the permanent parking signage he could see — the instructional sign explaining how to pay for parking that stood directly in front of his parking space. "If I had seen the signs, I definitely would have chosen somewhere else to park," Lee stated. "I don't have parking tickets. This is the first time I've ever had a vehicle towed." The discovery of his missing car the next morning added insult to injury. "I went down about... I think it was about 9:30 in the morning, I walked down to go grab my phone charger out of my car, and grab a couple other things, and my car was not there. The sign that's in the picture actually wasn't even there. I had to walk up the street, up the hill, and I finally found a pile of them upside down, flipped one over. And that's how I figured out where my car was." ## The Core Legal Question The hearing crystallized around a fundamental question of municipal parking enforcement: what responsibility does a driver bear to search for parking restrictions beyond immediately visible signage? Lee posed the question directly: "If you're expected to walk up and down a street to look for signs, I just don't know. If that's how it is, that's how it is. I just want to be aware of that in the future... Am I supposed to park somewhere where the signage that I see says it's legal... am I expected to walk another two blocks to check for possible signs?" Coulter's response reflected both the technical requirements and the practical challenges of parking enforcement: "The reality is, if you're parking on a block per the MUTCD [Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices], if there is one no parking sign on that side of the block, then that qualifies as being no parking for the entire block." The MUTCD, Coulter explained, provides federal guidelines with municipal adoption that govern how parking restrictions apply. In this case, a single no-parking sign technically covered all three parking spaces in Lee's section of the block. However, Lieutenant Alexander acknowledged the practical limitations of this expectation. "I think, realistically, at that time of the night, I don't know if people are going to be actively going and finding signs down the road, so I get that portion of it." ## Weather, Timing, and Reasonable Expectations The case highlighted the intersection of careful planning, unpredictable weather, and reasonable public expectations. Coulter noted that 11 signs had been placed on every available post along the block — "that is the best that we could do to communicate to the event coordinators how to best communicate that no parking regulation." The storm's timing proved particularly problematic. Weather reports indicated the wind began picking up around 1:45 AM, with signs beginning to fail around 3:30 AM based on city surveillance video. Lee's parking time of approximately 2:30-2:45 AM fell within this window of deteriorating conditions. Lee offered practical suggestions for future events: "I think that maybe in the future, since we do live in the Pacific Northwest, maybe a laminated material... I understand it's a temporary sign, you can't put too much expense into it, but lamination's not highly expensive." ## Procedural Completion and Evidence Review As the hearing concluded, additional evidence emerged. Coulter had prepared a photograph showing the rear of Lee's Toyota in relation to the fallen sign, which was added to the record during the proceeding. The image showed the vehicle parked immediately adjacent to where the no-parking sign would have been positioned before the storm. Hearing Examiner Rice reviewed the complete evidentiary record: Lee's appeal with payment receipt, parking enforcement emails with eight attachments, towing company documentation with thirteen attachments, and hearing scheduling correspondence. The additional context photograph and a marathon signage location map were incorporated as supplemental exhibits. "Those Exhibits 1 through 4, including those two additional photographs in Exhibit 2, and your testimony today will constitute the complete record," Rice announced. "I will be taking it under advisement, and I will be issuing a written decision not later than October 24." ## A Question of Balance The hearing concluded with fundamental questions unresolved but thoroughly aired. The case represented a collision between legitimate public safety needs — ensuring 3,000 marathon runners could safely navigate city streets — and reasonable expectations of due process in parking enforcement. The city's preparation had been thorough: coordination between multiple departments, advance signage installation, registered owner contact attempts, and careful documentation. The storm that morning was genuinely unpredictable, creating conditions that transformed a well-planned operation into a more complex enforcement situation. For Lee, the impoundment represented not just financial cost but a collision with municipal authority that felt fundamentally unfair. His defense — that he reasonably relied on visible signage and could not have been expected to search for blown-down restrictions in the middle of a stormy night — raised questions about the practical limits of parking enforcement. The case awaited Hearing Examiner Rice's written decision, due by October 24, which would establish precedent for how Bellingham handles similar weather-related complications in special event parking enforcement. Whatever the outcome, the hearing had illuminated the challenge of balancing public safety needs with individual rights in an increasingly complex urban environment where major events routinely require temporary restrictions on public space use.