There are usually three sides to a story. In this case it would be the OP's, the Deputy's and the what really happened. We don't have the Deputy's version, so let's look at the OP's own words and try to extrapolate from there.
OP drove up in the middle of an incident in progress that was already being handled by law enforcement officers. The Deputy handling the matter apparently believed OP almost struck him with his vehicle, not only endangering him, but delaying, obstructing and interfering with the Deputy's handling of the police matter in question. It does not matter how close OP came to striking him, the Deputy perceived it to be a risk and interference. In response, the Deputy admonished OP about his driving and instructed him to get back in his car and leave the scene. Rather than comply, OP remained at the scene and attempted to engage the Deputy in a debate over how far he and his vehicle should move in order to be in compliance. This only served to further delay, obstruct and interfere with the Deputy in handing the initial incident. This is a crime in most states and OP was arrested for such.
I cannot comment on the conversation between personnel at the jail other than to suggest that one Deputy felt OP wase merely acting in Contempt of Cop, had been taught a lesson and should be kicked loose, while another still saw merit in the obstructing/delaying charge. This was merely a philosophical difference between professionals.
I don't see a big issue with the prosecutors rejection comments either. It says the arrest report was crappy. We get those periodically. When we do, and if we really want to pursue the matter, we send the package back to the arresting officer and where appropriate, have him write a supplemental report clarifying the issue or establishing whatever elements were missing. If the suspect is no longer in custody, everything is then resubmitted to the prosecutor, an arrest warrant is issued for the suspect and we go arrest him.
Remember, the Deputy does not have to be right to be right. He only has to have acted reasonably. In this case, did he have reason to believe OP's conduct obstructed, delayed or interfered with the initial incident he was involved in handling? If so, no harm, no foul.
But even if he was wrong somehow, OP - what were your $ losses? How much money did you lose because of this? You can can't get money for would have, could have, should have. It doesn't work that way.