The defendant is innocent until proven guilty. In fact, several times here it has been posited that the court will probably find for the defendant.
If that wasn't an option, your argument would have more merit.
Again, you can tell from an internet post if someone is handicapped to the point where visual observation becomes prima facie?The OP says the guy was handicapped all his life and he is now a young adult. I'm pretty sure this would have been pretty obvious.
Further, the status of the person in the van is not part of this issue. The issue, if you remember, is whether or not the applicable law justified the ticket given.
Because the placard was not made out to anyone present, the ticket was given properly.
Again, I see no reason that the handicapped person and/or his friends could not have been dropped off at the time of the ticket.Even if he wasn't sure, I think prudence would dictate that he afford some benefit of doubt. After all... which would be the more desireabe scenario: A guy get away with a phony placard, or a handicapped guy being forced to be wheeled a mile or so in that insane parking lot traffic??? Imagine if the guy would have suffered an injury while wheeling himself through that lot.... do you think the city would likely share in that liability? I think they would and they should. So, your cop's poor judgement not only put the handicapped guy at risk, but he put the city at risk as well.
Walking through the traffic was the choice of the people in the van. If there was hazard, they could have a) decided not to go to the event; b) dropped the people off closer to the stadium and THEN parked; or c) parked and then taken a cab to the stadium. They choose to do none of these. At a certain point, we must assume that people are responsible for analyzing a situation and making a judgment call as to their own safety.

