Beyond the Echo Chamber: Real Solutions for Real Problems in Our Community!
Rana's Blog
Injustice Highlight
Vehicle Impoundment by police on public property
Personal Fight By: Rana L Courchaine
AI-Powered Insight
Vehicle Impound Case: HE-24-VI-033
An analysis of the events leading to the impound of a stolen vehicle and the subsequent hearing.
Sequence of Events: From Theft to Tow
The incident unfolded over several days, beginning with a vehicle theft and culminating in a costly impoundment that the owner was unaware of until she reported her car stolen.
October 4: The Theft
A 2002 VW Beetle is stolen from a secured residential lot. The thieves, unable to drive a manual transmission, abandon it outside the gate, obstructing a driveway.
October 5 (4:20 AM): First Police Encounter
An officer issues a parking ticket on the abandoned vehicle but does not deem it a sufficient hazard to tow at the time.
October 5 (9:32 AM): Second Police Encounter
Officer Otto arrives, notes the vehicle is a traffic hazard, and after failed contact attempts using outdated information, orders a tow within minutes.
October 5 (8:08 PM): Owner Reports Theft
The owner discovers her car is missing. Upon calling police, she is informed it has been "recovered" and impounded. This is the first time she learns of the tow.
The Financial Burden
The 21-day impound resulted in fees that were nearly three times the owner's fixed monthly disability income, creating a significant financial crisis that was resolved only by chance.
Total Impound Fee
$2,530.90
This cost accumulated over 21 days while the owner, a victim of theft, struggled to understand the situation and find the funds for release.
Key Arguments from the Hearing
The hearing revealed conflicting perspectives on responsibility and procedure.
Appellant's Position
The impound was unjust as she was a victim of theft. The police failed in their due diligence by using outdated contact information and not leaving a notice. The fees caused extreme financial and emotional hardship.
Police Department's Position
The tow was justified based on the immediate traffic hazard. The officer followed procedure by attempting contact with the information available at the time. The theft was unknown during the impound decision.
Tow Company's Position
The fees charged were correct according to the state-filed rate sheet. Under state law (RCW 46.55), the registered owner is solely responsible for all fees, regardless of whether the vehicle was stolen.
Process & Communication Failures
The case highlights several points where improved processes could have changed the outcome for the vehicle owner.
Outdated Database
Police relied on an internal system with an old phone number, despite current info being available via DOL.
Inconsistent Enforcement
One officer ticketed the car at 4 AM; another towed it 5 hours later for the same obstruction, citing increased traffic.
Communication Gap
The owner was not notified of the tow. She discovered it only after reporting the vehicle stolen, leading to a significant delay and increased fees.
Exploring Avenues for Resolution
While this case is concluded, individuals in similar situations may have avenues to explore for support and potential recourse. Use the tool below to generate some general, non-legal suggestions.
Justice Derailed
An analysis of the direct conflict between state law and city ordinance in Bellingham's vehicle impound appeal process, and its impact on citizens.
A Legal Standoff: State Law vs. City Ordinance
🏛️ Washington State Law
RCW 46.55.240(1)(d)
Mandates that appeals of administrative impound decisions be made to a district court for a "final judgment."
Interpretation:
This requires a DE NOVO review—a fresh, new hearing where a judge re-examines all facts and law, ensuring robust due process and judicial oversight.
🏙️ Bellingham City Ordinance
Ordinance No. 2000-11-077
Contains a direct internal contradiction, creating legal ambiguity and undermining the state's mandate.
The Conflict:
- Preamble: States appeals should be "in the normal manner rather than de novo."
- Operative Section: States the appeal hearing "shall be de novo."
This legislative contradiction creates a system where the right to a fair hearing is compromised from the start.
The Human Cost: An Ineffective System
The Hearing Examiner's 2024 report reveals a process that fails to provide meaningful relief, turning the right to appeal into an exercise in futility. The code is "silent on criteria that would establish a successful appeal."
Appeal Outcomes: 15 Cases Heard
This chart visualizes the stark reality for citizens appealing an impound. The overwhelming majority of appeals are denied, raising questions about the fairness and accessibility of the process.
87%
Denial Rate
The Hearing Examiner notes a "limited ability to grant relief" and a lack of "equity/fairness authority."
"The right to be heard implies a reasonable hope of being heeded."
- Smith v. Skagit County
Stories of "Uncomfortable Denials"
🚚
The Motorhome Owner
Diligently tried to comply with a warning but was impounded based on an uncommunicated rule. The system offered no recourse for the misunderstanding.
🅿️
The Bereaved Resident
Parked in a confusingly marked zone during a family emergency. Returned to find the car gone and fees mounting, with no consideration for the circumstances.
⌨️
The Dyslexic Permit Purchaser
Made a simple digit transposition error online. The vehicle was impounded months later without a warning call, despite the city having correct contact info.
Forging a Fairer Path Forward
To align with state law and ensure justice, the Hearing Examiner proposes critical reforms. The goal is to create a clear, equitable, and transparent process for all residents.
Proposed Legal & Jurisdictional Reforms
1. Amend City Ordinance
Remove the contradictory preamble and unequivocally affirm a DE NOVO review standard to align with state law.
2. Establish Clear Criteria for Relief
Amend B.M.C. 11.18.050 to define conditions for a successful appeal, allowing for discretion in cases of hardship or error.
3. Consider Transfer to Municipal Court
Leverage the court's broader judicial and equity powers to ensure a truly comprehensive "final judgment" can be rendered.
This flowchart illustrates the primary legal and structural changes needed to fix the core of the problem, ensuring the system is built on a solid, fair foundation.
Key Procedural & Public-Facing Improvements
-
✓
Ticket-Only First Warnings
Address simple data entry errors for paid permits without immediate impoundment.
-
✓
Better Signage & Communication
Require longer advance notice for temporary signs and add QR codes/URLs for public access to regulations.
-
✓
Comprehensive Warnings
Ensure initial warnings clearly state all potential reasons for impoundment.
-
✓
Leverage Technology
Use automatic plate readers and DOL data to proactively contact vehicle owners before towing.
-
✓
Public Education Campaign
Increase awareness of parking restrictions and impoundment rules to prevent issues proactively.
These practical steps can improve daily interactions between the city and its residents, reducing unfair impoundments and rebuilding public trust.
