Question for any lawyers

[Serpico]

I"m not sure if this is the correct forum but it seems to be the most appropriate. My question is to any lawyers, prosecutor or defense attorney. A police officer issues a summons for a traffic violation. The defendant pleads not guilty at the arraignment and wished to take the case to trial. The court then generates a subpeona for the officer to appear for trial but does not turn the subpoena over to the police department. On the day of the trial the prosecutor and public defender works out a deal for the defendant or dismisses they case based on lack of prosecution due to the absence of the officer. My question is it legal for municipal prosecutors to issue trial subpeonas (not for arraignment) and then not serve the officer(the only state witness) and ajudicate the case without ever speaking with the officer. And if it is infact illegal where in the New Jersey court rules may i find proof of its illegality.

Thanks.

[Tollhike]

The prosecutor runs the case for the state and he can subpeona or not subpeona anyone he wants to. The prosecutor does not have to serve the subpeona. He can just call the cop or send him a letter asking that he show up in court. If the case is serious then he probably will serve the subpeona. Also, a violation of court rules is not a criminal offense and not even illegal.

[Serpico]

Thank you very much for your quick response Tollhike. The municipality in question is using this tactic of not serving subpeonas to officers as a way of maintaining a low police budget. This way they can use police funds for other purposes. It just doesnt seem fair or lawfull that officers work hard just to have the courts dismiss the violation and the officer also not be compensated. What good is it to have a law if the courts dont enforce it and by dismiss cases it undermines the police authority. Believe me i know. I believe it is a Union issue. Thanks again.