Previously you claimed the case was thrown out "because the prosecutor didn't have the evidence he claimed he had in the arrest warrant" - which is a very different claim than your latest claim.
At this point it's clear that your personal recollection of this matter is not reliable. Post a link to a press account, or talk to the hand.
Wait I said he had no evidence that a crime was committed which is exactly the same thing He claimed the guy broke the law in the arrest warrant But he had no evidence that he did and the case was thrown out. Your problem is you are down to arguing semantics. You have nothing but.
Hell Comcast won in court when Big Media tried to force them to reveal identities of "alleged" file sharers to obtain warrants. WHY? Because they argued it violated privacy laws AND they also argued BIG MEDIA had no evidence that a designated customer had committed a crime. The court upheld Comcast's stance and forced BIG Media to use John Doe warrants to legally obtain the IDs of "alleged" File sharers. And when BIG MEDIA started losing these cases right and left they dropped that tactic.