On August 12, the Washington Supreme Court delivered an opinion on a case that argued a novel legal question – whether a city could enforce parking restrictions, including fines and impoundment, on a vehicle used as a residence.
In City of Seattle v. Long, the Court agreed with Long’s arguments that because he was living in his truck, the vehicle was automatically protected from debt
collection under the homestead act (Chapter 6.13 RCW) which provides protections from using a residence to satisfy debts. However, the Court agreed with Seattle that because the city never collected on Long’s debt the protections of the homestead
act against attachment, execution, or forced sale were never implicated. The Court further concluded that the city had the authority to seize Long’s truck, impoundment was reasonable under the circumstances, and no alternatives existed in this
case. Long also argued that the fines were excessive and violated constitutional protections against cruel and unusual punishment. The Court agreed that the impoundment and associated cost were both partially punitive and, as such, determined them
to be fines under the Eighth Amendment. But the Court applied a new test finding that Long did not have the ability to pay the fines. Finally, the Court concluded that the payment plan that Long agreed to in order to retrieve his truck was excessive
in this case, but that “a reasonable fine may still be constitutional and appropriate.”
This case arose when Steven Long parked for three months in a city parking lot that had a 72-hour parking restriction. Long was living in the truck and used it to store his personal possessions, including tools of his trade. When Long did not move his
truck after it was posted with a parking violation notice, a city-contracted company towed the truck in Long’s absence. At the impoundment hearing, the magistrate found that Long had parked illegally but waived the $44 parking infraction fine,
reduced the impoundment charges from $946.61 to $547.12, and added a $10.00 administrative fee. Long was then required to pay $50 a month under a payment plan. Long received his truck after the hearing.
The homestead act applies to vehicles used as homes
On appeal, the Court held that occupied personal property used as a residence – a car, truck, or RV—is automatically granted the protection of the homestead act. Importantly, the Court noted that the homestead act operates as a shield to protect
against incurring a debt on the property used as a residence. However, this protection does not arise until that debt is adjudicated by a court. In its reasoning the Court explained that to hold otherwise would turn the homestead act’s “shield”
into a “sword,” requiring parking enforcement officers and not the courts to determine the value of the homestead. The Court stated, “[T]owing a vehicle is not a debt protected by the homestead act until that debt is adjudicated.”
The Court further noted that its “decision on the homestead act does not call into question the city’s independent authority to impound a vehicle.” In sum, a vehicle automatically becomes a homestead when the owner uses the property
as their primary residence. Treat it as a home because the courts do.
Lawful impoundments
Long argued that the city’s failure to consider alternatives to impoundment was unreasonable under article I, section 7 of our state constitution. The Court disagreed, reasoning that Long had no right to park on a public right of way after the 72-hour
limitation and that because he stated his truck was not operable, the city had no reasonable alternative but to impound. The Court clarified the city’s authority to impound is distinct from the homestead act, stating “Homestead protections
are resolved upon enforcement, not issuance, of a parking ticket or impoundment of a vehicle.”
Parking enforcement can trigger an excessive fines violation
Article I, section 14 of Washington’s Constitution provides greater protection than the Eighth Amendment for the purposes of cruel punishment, including excessive fines. However, because Long failed to provide support of his argument under our state
constitution, the Court reviewed the issue of excessive fines under the parallel provision in the U.S. Constitution – the Eighth Amendment.
Under the Eighth Amendment analysis, the Court evaluated whether the impoundment and costs were at least partially punitive and, if so, whether they were grossly disproportional to the offense. Seattle argued that because the impoundment was not permanent
and the cost was remedial in nature, there was no Eighth Amendment violation. Relying on the plain language of Seattle’s ordinance, the Court disagreed and determined that the intent of the ordinance was to penalize violators. The Court explained
that although the associated costs were intended to reimburse the city for towing and storage fees, the fees were imposed only as a result of the impoundment, which the ordinance characterized as a “penalty.” The Court held that both the
impoundment and costs were partially punitive.
As to whether the fine was “excessive” under the Eight Amendment, the Court added a new element to the application of the Ninth Circuit’s test as to whether a fine is proportional to the gravity of the offense—ability to pay. Citing
none other than the Magna Carta in its reasoning, the Court explained the appropriateness of adding this inquiry: “The Magna Carta—from which the Eighth Amendment descended—limited the government’s power to impose punitive
fines by, in part, forbidding penalties ‘so large as to deprive [a person] of his livelihood.’”
Using the now five-part test to determine whether the impoundment and costs were excessive, including the terms of the payment plan, the Court determined that they were. Of note, the five-part test is fact specific, and the result will vary with each
situation. For example, if concurrent illegal activity is occurring, the vehicle is parked in a high-demand area, or the owner is not indigent, the outcome could be different. The Court again emphasized that its decision focused only on enforcement
and not on issuance of an infraction or a decision to impound.
Takeaways
In light of this ruling, here are some options to consider to reduce risk when enforcing parking restrictions, in consultation with your city’s legal counsel:
- Review your parking enforcement procedures
- Designate a safe parking location to remove the illegality of the parking entirely (or partner with your local faith community to offer safe parking in their lots)
- Limit your enforcement of vehicles suspected as homes
- If you choose to impound:
- Avoid any action that looks like you will auction the vehicle unless payment is received
- If you collect on the debt, the protections of the homestead act are triggered
- Treat any car that appears to be serving as a residence as a home, including searches of property inside
- Review your fines and fees ordinances under the Eighth Amendment protection against excessive fines:
- Are they used as punishment, even partially, OR
- Are the fees and fines associated with the actual costs incurred, or close to?
- Must consider individual circumstance and ability to pay during impoundment hearing