You can't step back and see it, can you? It must be a 'forest for the trees' thing.
You posted a question, basically asking if your assumption was correct. Several people posted replies saying it wasn't. You proceed to argue the point, posting several statutes to prove your assumption correct. Others point out things saying that it isn't. Blah blah blah.
The question becomes... did you ask because you did not know and wanted accurate information, or did you ask because you wanted to see whether or not others knew?
At a certain point, people are just going to say, "Yeah. Go with it. Let us know what happens".
The overall issue as I see it: Do you really want to pin your entire defense on what may or may not be a procedural error by the prosecution... which hasn't even been made yet?
Wouldn't it make more sense to argue the case on the merits and facts?
Maybe it was my approach to this that was confusing, or that I didn't catch right away the fact that in his/her first response, TheOccultist was talking about Discovery, not disclosure. Either way, my first few responses weren't about arguing my point as much as trying to get people to understand more clearly what my question was about.
Second, I don't consider repeated responses like "you're wrong" to be valid answers to my questions after I've demonstrated why I think I'm right. If someone sees something I obviously don't, why not cite it? It should be pretty easy to copy-n-paste if you're looking at it. I tried to coax this, but when people weren't getting the hint, I started to suspect that they didn't really know the answer to my question and instead of admitting this, they decided to try to save face with sarcastic responses to make it look like I was the a-hole for asking them to support their claims.
Finally, I'm not basing my entire defense on this possible procedural error (that
has already happened, btw). I've got an entire defense strategy that is based on facts and evidence, but while I was reading up on court rules, I realized I hadn't received proper disclosure from the prosecution. So then I thought "hey, maybe I can use this to prevent the officers testimony." If it works, great, but it means I'll have to forgo my discovery request and just use the documentation I get directly from the police agency.
So in the end it doesn't look like anyone here has been able to answer my question, which is fine. I just don't understand acting like you know the answer and instead of citing your sources, you're going to be coy about it.