November 24th 2020 Humane Society for Jefferson County Releases Moses to CVAR. Was it ALL by the Book, As a Matter of Law? YOU DECIDE.

Was there ANY Missteps in the Protocol of How this case happened? You Decide

The Link below is the Documents that Transferred Michael Allmain's PROPERTY, his Emotional Support Dog, his family to CVAR, Center Valley Animal Rescue.

Was the Animal At Large Laws / Codes Followed?

Were they required to Keep Moses longer at the Human Society as a Matter of Law? Stray Stay Laws?

Can they claim you or your dog have a "history" because of a past accident and use that to transfer your animal at large (your private property) to another town in the same county? to a non-profit ? AS A MATTER OF LAW? even if you were not convicted of such in the past? (keep in mind these are criminal cases)

And can they by law keep your PROPERTY, 4 months and counting now and place a lien on the property they took for services they forced on you by taking your private property, with proven prior malicious intent, by placing a premeditated lien. As shown at this thread below.

a Few Screen Shots of the Premeditated Plan to place a future lien to STEAL private property, I Allege.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/fX4TReJinMzcucPd6

Full CVAR Facebook Thread, MINUS the side of the victim, the side of the guy they are maliciously discriminating against, violent threats, breaking law threats, lying that dog is dead threats and painting a false "history" of Michael Allmain and his dog Moses. 

CVAR seems to have deleted Michael Allmain (the property owner) side of the story, as did the Port Townsend Community Facebook page so here is the side of the Lynch mob and a few compassionate critical thinkers. 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TIwVMqLaqb6yOhYsyaGfI7GPGN2Syg6a/view

Click Below for Playlist of My Commentary

regarding the malicious thread. 

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAm1zfJkpiXblXrkESNrYkiR1OfJ42twk

Was it Lawful to NOT tell the Owner of the dog, the property where it/he was located? A homeless man they all knew, as admitted by saying history, as well as lot's of other evidence proving the City of Port Townsend and the County knew exactly how to contact, find this man.

Was it Lawful to Deny the Owner ANY information on where his property was, where his family, his Emotional support dog was?

Was it lawful for the Humane Society for Jefferson County to give out information on Moses's location and treatment to other members of the community? or anyone?

Was it lawful to use a "history" against this man, and take his personal property to a location of which he is given no information on where his property is? NO VISITATIONS? 

The "history" the Humane Society refers to in the Letter does not exist as a matter of law, in my opinion, it only exists in hearsay.  

Yes Mike Allmain's dog had an accident, that was 2 years ago. That SHOULD not be used in a case of animal at large, and called "history" and if it can, as a matter of law then any of you that have a dog that has ever had an accident of any kind then that is "HISTORY", unadjudicated history and can and will be used against you to 'steal" (I allege) your property, keep your emotional support dog and with NO information to you regarding where your family member your private personal property is. 

AND with NO Legal REMEDY TO GET YOUR PROPERTY BACK. Moses was transferred from the City of Port Townsend to a Non-Profit in Quilcene, WA (same county) within 24 hours, was this lawful?  There was NO REMEDY Given for the Property Owner to retrieve his property, his Emotional Support Dog, until 3 months later, as of which so much time passed that Center Valley Animal Rescue racked up over $11,000 in bills, of which at that point they could place a lien and keep the property forever, and with prior intent proven to do this exact thing to steal, take this property, this particular homeless man's dog. 

Officer Wendy Davis Legal Remedy Notice 3 MONTHS into IT.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/15FlGjpyTNuTrtixHpAOAMD2Z9F1xJzSZ/view

Was it Lawful to provide a REMEDY to retrieve the property, the emotional support dog 3 months later? The law, as stated in the Remedy Letter above that the REMEDY has to be provided within a "feasible" amount of time, is Feasible a legal term?  Does 3 months, and after a $11k Vet Bill racks up, seem FEASIBLE as a matter of Law?

Is it Lawful to then finally give this Remedy, state the EXACT Total Amount to be paid to redeem your PRIVATE PROPERTY, YOUR Emotional Support Dog, and then when you meet their REMEDY Demands, they change the TOTAL and add more to the REMEDY? Was this lawful?  IF SO, YOU ARE NEXT. 

Unadjudicated means it was not found to be true in a court of law, yet they are using the prior accident as history as if a court found it true, and that is not what happened. The History allegation is painting Michael Allmain in false light (another allegation I will point out in a criminal complaint), this false light defamation, affected Michael in his animal at large case, A CRIMINAL CASE. 

Was all this by the book folks? Was it lawful? If you feel it was, then it had better apply to everyone, past and future, any dog for any reason in Jefferson County. 

ONLY a Lynch Mob I call them, a group of local individuals, government agencies, non-profits and attorneys say there is a history of neglect, NOT TRUE as a matter of law, right?

So if your dog has an accident, and years later they find your dog at large, got off the leash somehow for ANY reason then they can transfer it from the Humane Society for Jefferson County to a non-profit, give you no information and keep your dog for 4 months and charge you huge fees to get your dog, your property, your life back. All because of "history" that was "hearsay"?

IF YOU FIND ALL THIS LAWFUL. OK FINE. THEN IT NOW APPLIES TO EVERY PERSON IN JEFFERSON COUNTY.  Every Dog at large, of which I see weekly. Every Household, Every camper, tourist, homeless person, and well it SHOULD and WILL apply Equally to ALL.  Unless of course this is simply a matter of Discrimination against this ONE Port Townsend Homeless Man.

Click Below to Read the Communications that Released MOSES, Michael Allmain's Private Property and Support dog from the City of Port Townsend, from the County Humane Society and to a local private non-profit called Center Valley Animal Rescue. 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GbEJb8iBKml_02oqzqSEXQR4ydJpuxzl/view?usp=sharing

Below is My Commentary on the Humane Society Letter and Communication with Officer Wendy Davis

AS I POST THIS, Today is March 28th, 2021, CVAR still has Michael Allmains PROPERTY.  Jefferson County, via Prosecutor Melissa Pleimain is still pursing criminal charges against Michael and has dug in and stated in court that they do not want Michael to have his dog, they judge he can't take care of Moses. As far as I see it they have all violated Civil and Criminal Laws, we shall continue to report on every aspect the best we can.  If you have a Tip, eMail me at ReverendCrystalCox@gmail.com 

More on this Story At 

https://michaelandmoses.blogspot.com/

Officer Wendy Davis, PTPD, Jason Greenspane, Garin Williams Paul Becker, Port Townsend Animal Control Case, Humane Society for Jefferson County, Prosecutor Melissa Pleimann, Prosecutor Kennedy, Michael Allmain Criminal Case, Vigilante Justice, Attorney Adam Karp, Center Valley Animal Rescue, City of Port Townsend, Prosecutor Chris Ashcraft, Port Townsend Homeless, Port Townsend Emotional Support Animals, Port Townsend Police Harassment, Port Townsend Discrimination Case. 

Michael and Moses Case: Let's Talk TIMELINES, Legal Letters and Remedies.

 A Bit on Timeline, Civil and Criminal Conspiracy I Allege.

On the Evening of November 23rd, 2020 Moses, Michael Allmain's Dog, his PROPERTY, goes missing.

Michael Contacts the Jefferson Humane Society by phone and the police immediately, he is led to Officer Wendy Davis who allegedly ignores him.

November 24, 2020 by NOON private citizen Michelle Sanchez gets information from the Jefferson County Humane Society that Moses is at CVAR, and Posts on Facebook as seen in screen shot below. So the very next morning after Moses goes missing and his owner is frantically looking, even though ALL parties knew who the owner was, this woman knows?  How did this woman know that quick that someone else's private property was missing? And how did she get information of where that stolen property was, where his emotional support dog, his property was?

On November 26, 2020 Defendant Michael Allmain emails the Jefferson County Humane Society, “the Pound” as private citizen Michelle Sanchez calls it in her post at NOON the day after the property, the dog Moses goes missing, and “the Pound” who gave her private confidential information, REFUSED that information to the Property Owner, Michael’s family member, his emotional support dog Moses. 

Michael continues to contact everyone and anyone, he posts on community pages, he calls the police and everyone he can and is ignored. Others contact the county attorney on his behalf and they are shut down. Meanwhile the public, lynch mob I call them, gets information from government officials and a non-profit about his private property, his confidential information.

December 16th 2020 Michael has email correspondence with County Attorney Chris Ashcraft, he is told he can’t talk to him because a criminal case has been filed.  So WHOSE responsibility was it to notify the OWNER as per this leader article they admit they have to.
http://porttownsendnews.blogspot.com/2021/03/did-all-these-laws-and-regulations.html

Michael Continues to beg, plead and search for months. 

Then on FRIDAY February 19th, 2021 Port Townsend City Officer Wendy Davis mails Defendant Michael Allmain a Legal Remedy to redeem his PROPERTY, his Dog Moses.  The law in the letter says it is supposed to be sent in a “feasible” amount of time, I guess that means months and 15k later, tee hee.  Anyway, 3 MONTHS in a letter is mailed to notify the property owner the LEGAL Remedy, as a matter of law to redeem his property. 

On SATURDAY February 20th, 2021 Michael Allmain gets the Legal Remedy Letter. (Click Below to Read) and he emails it to me, Reverend Crystal Cox, I get the letter on that same date of February 20th, 2021.  

Legal Remedy Letter

https://drive.google.com/file/d/15FlGjpyTNuTrtixHpAOAMD2Z9F1xJzSZ/view 

On SUNDAY February 21th, 2021 I, Reverend Crystal Cox uploaded a video reading the letter and posted a copy on my blog.  Click Below to watch

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5EPhG2nlss

On MONDAY February 22, 2021, MIRACULOUSLY, homeless man, Michael has someone offer to loan him the Legal Remedy stated in a legal notice, the $2556 in order to redeem his property, his family, his Dog Moses.  Michael contacts his court appointed criminal attorney, who then contacts Officer Wendy Davis and tells her that his client has the money ( ya know the LEGAL REMEDY can be fulfilled per LAW) and she allegedly acted surprised, I allege she did not think there was anyway for this homeless guy to come up with the $2556, so they would keep the dog and the issue would simply go away.  So she allegedly said something like, well, I am not sure I will have to check with CVAR and see if they have a lien or any expenses.  Ok So NOW the “Legal Remedy” has changed?  IS THIS LAWFUL?  Is this how it works for everyone, or just for us homeless folks?  

Ok so that phone call with Michael’s attorney and Officer Wendy Davis letting her know he has the remedy where we can pay and where is the dog, oh and MICHAEL did not know where MOSES was until that moment when Officer Wendy Davis said she would have to see if CVAR has a lien.  Though so many other people, Not the Owner, knew all along. 

LATER THAT SAME DAY.  On MONDAY February 22, 2021, WOW, Magically CVAR did have a Lien, well I allege they had one on the standby in case they needed it to ensure they keep the dog while they set the own up for criminal abuse and neglect charges and steal his personal property, harass and torment him.  THE LIEN HAS THAT EXACT DATE OF FEBRUARY 22, 2021.

Here is the Later that Same Day Lien (after 3 months)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qM2zxG677VyCwqA0BH3SqqpPHoy6ZEft/view

Here is my Commentary on the Lien 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5sNuzc4OUs

So after 3 months Defendant Michael Allmain is given a Legal Remedy by the City of Port Townsend, and when he meets this Legal Remedy (by Statute, as a Matter of LAW), the City of Port Townsend Officer in charge contacts CVAR and gets them to enact their pre-meditated lien to keep the stolen property, I ALLEGE.

Full Story at 

https://MichaelandMoses.blogspot.com/

Washington State Non-Profit, Center Valley Animal Rescue, PUBLICLY Declares they are "Willing" to PAY "Provide" “ALL” “ON Going Care”. Bait and Switch I Say.

BAIT AND SWITCH DO-GOODERS

Look Here We are doing good things and we are willing to provide ongoing care for this dog in need, oh gee darn, changed our minds how about $11,600 instead.

Washington State Non-Profit PUBLICLY Declares they are "Willing" to PAY "Provide" “ALL” “ON Going Care”

Yet Privately, Maliciously with intent to steal private property I Allege and viciously discriminate and attack a homeless man, Bill the “client” as per law is the owner, as I understand it, $11,600 after hiding, concealing his property for 4 months now and counting.  They hide his dog and give no legal remedy for months, then give a remedy by law, than bait and switch, change that remedy too.  And you see in the screen shots below that this non-profit, this vet seemingly way outside confidentiality laws, and in complete discrimination admit to giving updates to multiple parties, while KNOWING who the owner was and did not give him information. Why?

Click On Photo Above for Full Post

Here are a Few of the Comments from the 253 Comments on the Center Valley Animal Rescue Facebook Page. 

For Full Facebook Thread with Malicious Intent to STEAL a man's property, defame and cause intentional harm, click here

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1J-jbU0Nkg90G0P8KmqIqKYVbQQLlzPwH/view

NOTE that Michael's, the Owner, the Victim's side was deleted, just like with the Port Townsend Community Page did.

Six Videos of a Facebook Thread on 

Center Valley Animal Rescue Facebook Page

from May 2019, still Live as of this posting, showing

 INTENT to Place Lien Against Michael Allmain’s Property, I allege, to Steal his Property.  This is a Violent, Dangerous Lynch Mob. The video is with Commentary by Reverend Crystal Cox, 

Goddess Church Port Townsend. Click Below for Playlist. 

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAm1zfJkpiXblXrkESNrYkiR1OfJ42twk

                       Hearsay Mob Mentality Lynch Mob

Center Valley Animal Rescue Thread from May of 2019

Proving Intent to Place a Lien Against Michael Allmain’s ‘

Property’, his Dog, Moses. A few Photos of the Thread on this 

Exact Topic of Placing a Lien on Michael's "Property" Moses, his dog

https://photos.app.goo.gl/fX4TReJinMzcucPd6  

 A few photos of the Center Valley Animal Rescue  malicious Lynch Mob Thread from May of 2019 Proving Intent, I ALLEGE. And lot’s of other YUCKY stuff.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/Xknbivmqwt6VqCtV7

Full Story at Link Below

MichaelandMoses.blogspot.com

Center Valley Animal Rescue followed through on this intent nearly 2 years later (now). MARCH 2021. I ALLEGE Criminal Theft with premeditated intent and massive Civil rights violations. STAY TUNED this STORY WILL GET VERY BIG once I have All my Homework done.

To me, in my opinion, this Thread shows malicious intent on the part of Center Valley Animal Rescue and other parties.  As of March 12, 2021 in an Evidentiary Hearing at the Jefferson County Courthouse in Port Townsend I learned that Center Valley Animal Rescue has approx. $11,000 in Liens against Michaels "property", his dog, Moses, his Family and Emotional Support Animal. As I see it this was done to STEAL the dog. 

Here are a Few of the Comments from the 253 Comments on the Center Valley Animal Rescue Facebook Page. 

For Full Facebook Thread with Malicious Intent to STEAL a man's property, defame and cause intentional harm, click here

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1J-jbU0Nkg90G0P8KmqIqKYVbQQLlzPwH/view

NOTE that Michael's, the Owner, the Victim's side was deleted, just like with the Port Townsend Community Page did.

First Up we see Jasmine Glaze talking to Sara,

the CVAR director and suggesting the placing of a lien.

Animal Attorney Adam Karp joins the Lynch Mob and offers up a Statute.

Let's take a Look at RCW 60.56.025

RCW 60.56.025

Lien created for care of animal seized by law enforcement officer.

If a law enforcement officer authorizes removal of an animal pursuant to chapter 16.52 RCW, the person or entity receiving the animal and aiding in its care or restoration to health shall have a lien upon the animal for the cost of feeding, pasturing, and caring otherwise for the animal. The lien attaches on the date such costs are due and payable but are unpaid. Any such person is authorized to retain possession of the animal until such costs are paid or the lien expires, whichever first occurs.

Source

https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=60.56.025

Have a Vet File a Lien, oh ya we just happen to have one of those. 

Hold his "property" aKa THEFT and with proven criminal intent, in my opinion.   

So, is this tampering with evidence in a criminal case? What came first CVAR's agenda or the Criminal Case? 

Was the dog Evidence in that prior Criminal Case? 

Sounds kind of like a premeditated set up to me, and at the unjust enrichment of all parties, especially Center Valley Animal Rescue. 

INTENT TO STEAL A MAN'S PROPERTY?

SURE LOOKS THAT WAY TO ME. 

So Hold the property (dog) until you can set him up for criminal charges?

"WHAT DO WE HAVE TO DO TO STOP THIS?"

"DO WE NEED TO BREAK THE LAW"

LET'S DO IT

Did CVAR follow the stray dog laws? Did the Sheriff?

Why did Moses not go to HSJC, the Humane Society?

Why NOW in the Current Criminal Case, was Moses picked up on November 23, 2020, by NOON on November 24th 2020, CVAR already had possession of Moses per the thread above of Michelle Sanchez's Conversation with the "Pound". 

Was the Stray Hold at HSJC laws or rules broke in the current case. Barely one night and off to 

Center Valley Animal Rescue, knowing who the dog's owner was? I call this THEFT with malicious intent to harm an innocent man.

So Helpful to Research how to Steal a Dog, a man's property and emotionally torment him.  WOW !!!

ANIMAL ATTORNEY ADAM P. KARP

HEY WANNA STEAL THAT GUYS DOG AND DRIVE HIM TO SUICIDE?

 OR JUST WANT

TO STEAL HIS PERSONAL PROPERTY?
   

"I CAN HELP" 


HERE'S A WASHINGTO LAW, DO THIS.  YA AND THEN OVER THE NEXT YEAR THEY SET UP MICHAEL ALLMAIN AND THEN I ALLEGE UNCLIPPED MOSES FROM HIS LEAD, THEN CALLED THE COPS, THEN CONVIENTLY KNEW MOSES HAD BEEN AT LARGE AND PICKED UP BY THE "POUND" BY THE VERY NEXT MORNING.   

WOWEEE !!!

OK SO NOW WAIT WHO DID WHAT?

 So HSJC is not animal control, that is JCSO (last time) (this time it is the City of Port Townsend March 18, 2021 now as I type this from an animal at large as of November 23, 2020.

JCSO MADE THE MISTAKE?

CVAR DID NOT CALL THE SHERIFF FOR PROPER HOLD TIMES?

SAY WHAT ?

WERE THE STRAY ANIMAL LAWS FOLLOWED THIS CURRENT ANIMAL AT LARGE HOLD TIME 4 MONTHS LATER.  

THEY STOLE THIS DOG 4 MONTHS AND COUNTING. 

I WILL ABSOLUTELY ADOPT THIS DOG AND PAY FOR ITS MEDICAL CARE? 

HMMM BUT NOT IF THE HOMELESS GUY KEEPS IT? 

 SOMETHING FISHY THERE TOO. 

GET A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER LIEN FOR VET FEES?

UMMM THEY CLEARLY STOLE THE DOG WITH INTENT.

OK SO THEY PLANNED FOR OVER A YEAR TO PLACE A LIEN ON THIS MAN'S PROPERTY.  THEY SET THIS MAN UP, AND I ALLEGE LET HIS DOG LOSE THEN CALLED THE COPS.  THEN THEY TOOK THEIR STOLEN PROPERTY TO AN UNDISCLOSED LOCATION OF WHICH THE OWNER WAS NOT ALLOWED TO KNOW BUT ALL THE CLATTERING LYNCH MOB HAD ACCESS TO THAT INFORMATION. 

THEN THEY RACK UP $11,600 IN BILLS FOR AN ANIMAL, PROPERTY, THEY STOLE AND THE OWNER CAN'T HAVE THIS PROPERTY UNLESS THEY PAY THE SEEMING BLACK MAIL MONEY?

SO THAN MICHAEL IS GUILTY OF ANIMAL ABUSE UNLESS HE CAN PAY $2500 TO THE CITY, AND $11,600 TO THE UNJUST ENRICHMENT OF CVAR, AND THEN MAGICALLY HE IS NOT AN ABUSER?    SAY WHAT?

THEN THEY PRESS CRIMINAL CHARGES IN 2021 AND USE EVIDENCE FROM 2019 BASED ON HEARSAY AND NO PRIOR CONVICTION. OTHERWISE KNOWN AS, THEY PREJUDICED MICHAEL ALLMAN BY BRINGIN IN IRRELEVANT PAST EVENTS AND HEARSAY WITH NO CONVICTION. 

KEEP CALLING THE PROSECUTORS OFFICE?

IS THAT WHAT HAPPENED? THEY GOT SO MANY CALLS THEY DECIDED TO SACRIFICE MICHAEL ALLMAIN, HIS FAMILY, HIS PROPERTY, HIS BEST FRIEND TO SILENCE ALL THOSE CALLS?

Email the Humane Society to get their Attention at friends@HSJCWA.org they say.  Why do so 

many seem to have rights and resources in all this except NOT the dog's owner? Discrimination perhaps? Yep, going with YES on that. 

More to This Story at 

https://MichaelandMoses.blogspot.com/

Living in Vehicles: How Homestead Rights Affect Municipal Impounds

 "On October 12, 2016, the City of Seattle impounded a 2000 GMC 2500 Sierra truck owned by Steven Long from an unused gravel lot owned by the city. The truck was inoperable, had been on the lot for approximately three months, and had previously been tagged for violating Seattle’s prohibition on parking on city property or right-of-way in the same spot for more than 72 hours (SMC 11.72.440(B)).

Mr. Long lived in his truck and testified that he lived outside during the time his truck was impounded. He contested the impound at a hearing before a magistrate and explained that the vehicle was his home. The magistrate upheld the ticket and impound, since the vehicle had been parked in violation of city ordinances, but waived the ticket fee and reduced the impound fee from $946.61 to $547.12. Mr. Long did not have the money so he entered into a payment plan so that he could get his truck back. Had he not done so the truck would have been sold at auction.

On appeal to King County Superior Court, the court ruled that Washington’s Homestead Act (“Act”) (chapter 6.13 RCW) applies to vehicles that are used as residences. The court found that homestead status attaches to a vehicle from the time an owner starts using it as a residence and that filing a “declaration of homestead” is not required to invoke homestead protections. The court therefore struck down the impound charges and the resulting payment plan because they operated as a lien on Mr. Long’s residence. On June 29, 2020, the Washington Court of Appeals affirmed this aspect of the decision in the published decision of City of Seattle v. Long.

What are Homestead Rights? How Do They Apply to Vehicles?

Homestead is an important protection in Washington law, but it does not frequently intersect with municipal law. The purpose of the Act is to place qualifying homes, or portions of them, beyond the reach of judgments and creditors to prevent families from experiencing destitution and to promote the stability and welfare of the state. The origins of the Act are in the Washington Constitution, which provides (Article 19, Section 1): “The legislature shall protect by law from forced sale a certain portion of the homestead and other property of all heads of families.” The Act implements this directive and RCW 6.13.070 provides that real or personal property used as a residence “is exempt from attachment and from execution or forced sale for the debts of the owner up to the amount specified in RCW 6.13.030.”

Both sides in the Long case agreed that a vehicle could be subject to homestead protection. The disagreement was whether filing a declaration of homestead under RCW 6.13.040 is necessary to invoke that protection. The Court of Appeals concluded that homestead protections attached to Mr. Long’s truck automatically. Although the Act is ambiguous on this question, the Court of Appeals noted that: (1) homesteads are favored under Washington law and courts construe the Act liberally to protect family homes; and (2) the legislative history of 1993 amendments to the Act disclosed an intent for the automatic homestead protections to apply to people residing in their vehicles.

The Court of Appeals also found that the lien resulting from the impoundment pursuant to RCW 46.55.140(1) never attached to Mr. Long’s truck and that the sale (or threat of sale) of unclaimed vehicles at auction constitutes a “forced sale:”

While the City did not ultimately forcibly sell Long’s truck, it did withhold his truck under the threat of such a sale unless he agreed to pay the impoundment costs. Liberally construing the Act to achieve its purpose of protecting homes, we determine that this violated the Homestead Act. The City had no legal authority to make the threat to induce Long to enter a payment plan. Thus, we conclude the payment plan is void.

One thing to remember about the Long case is that it only addresses the disposition of vehicles after impound:

Our decision does not affect the City’s authority to tow and impound an illegally parked vehicle. Nor does it prohibit the City from charging a vehicle owner for costs associated with the towing and impounding of a vehicle. But if that vehicle serves as the owner’s principal residence, the City may not withhold the vehicle from the owner under the threat of forced sale.

This result creates a dilemma for municipalities. Under Long it appears that a municipality may hold a vehicle owner responsible for impoundment fees and costs, but the city (and by extension the tow company) can’t recoup those costs by selling a homestead vehicle. If a municipality can impound homestead vehicles but may not sell unclaimed vehicles, what should be done with those vehicles? There are no clear answers, but municipalities should evaluate their impound procedures in light of Long.

Municipalities Should Review their Impound Procedures

Municipalities should consider adopting policies that ensure that vehicles with homestead protections are not sold as part of the impound process. I reached out to some municipalities to find out how they are responding to Long. Here is what I found out:

• Municipalities are impounding less, in part because of the COVID-19 emergency. Long provides additional reasons for municipalities to consider the circumstances under which vehicles should be impounded.
• One jurisdiction indicated it would impound homestead vehicles to city property instead of the tow operator’s yard to ensure the vehicle is not sold at auction. The jurisdiction also indicated that it would return the vehicle without charging the impound fee if the owner was not able to pay. Municipalities may want to train their enforcement officers to notice if there are indications that a vehicle is used for habitation and treat those vehicles differently from other impounds.
• One city representative indicated that the city would consider paying the impound fees if a homestead vehicle is impounded to a towing facility. That expense might be justifiable if it avoids a claim that the vehicle was sold in violation of the owner’s homestead rights.

Another issue for a jurisdiction to consider is what to do with vehicles that are inoperable or not claimed by their owners. Once a municipality is in possession of a homestead vehicle, it may be difficult to dispose of if the owner is not willing or able to drive it away. Additionally, there may be circumstances under which it is difficult to determine whether a vehicle is a homestead. That raises the possibility that a municipality may inadvertently sell a homestead vehicle if the owner does not promptly seek to redeem the vehicle.

Conclusion

Homestead rights are important, because for many people experiencing homelessness, the alternative to sleeping in a vehicle is sleeping outside. However, from a practical standpoint, Long creates a lot of uncertainty with respect to municipal impound practices.

Long is, in my opinion, part of a trend in which courts are taking the pervasiveness of homelessness into account in their decisions. Examples of other cases include Martin v. City of Boise (Ninth Circuit, restricting enforcement of certain types of anti-camping and sit-lie ordinances), City of Lakewood v. Willis (Washington Supreme Court, striking down ordinance restricting solicitation of aid); State v. Pippin (Washington Court of Appeals, finding that law enforcement needs a warrant to search an unauthorized encampment on public property); and Desertrain v. City of Los Angeles (Ninth Circuit, striking down ordinance prohibiting use of vehicles for habitation in city right-of-way). This trend should be considered when adopting legislation or policies that will impact people experiencing homelessness."

Source

http://mrsc.org/Home/Stay-Informed/MRSC-Insight/August-2020-1/Living-in-Vehicles-Homestead-Rights.aspx