BoldlyRide

A follow-up on a previous post about (mis)statements of legal authority. I had a client in my office today (who still hasn't paid me for work I did a few years ago) who told me how he scared a local prosecutor spitless. The background is that the guy was pulled over and then arrested because the records showed that his driver's license had been suspended. The license had in fact been suspended for nonpayment of child support. However, suspension was erroneous and he got the license reinstated between the time that he pled not guilty and the pretrial conference. Once he got the license reinstated, he went to the prosecutor and told Mr. Prosecutor that he had to drop the charges for three reasons:
1. The cop never read him his rights;
2. The cop never buckled him in when he put him in the cruiser; and
3. The cop searched his vehicle FOR NO REASON when he was arrested and didn't find anything.
Naturally, in the face of those weighty arguments the prosecutor had no choice but to drop the charges.

I saw no reason to disillusion the gentleman. He wants to believe that the case was dismissed because the cop never read him his rights. Months ago when this happened, he had called me about it and I informed him then that the rights issue was meaningless and that if the suspension was erroneous, the case would be dismissed. But now I see how the system works in the minds of those who think they see clearly: Somebody didn't get their rights read to them and they got off -- that must be the reason, cause and effect, and who cares what the other facts are in the case.