Here is a parable for which you might find some analogies to the trucking complaint:

​

A bank robber enters a bank and proceeds to rob it of $3 million.  He herds all the customers and bank employees into the vault, closes the door and drives home.  On the way he passes two radar speed traps.  But, he is going just under the speed limit.  So, he smiles and waves at the traffic officers as he goes by.  He also approaches two intersections with red-light cameras.  At both intersections the lights are just changing to yellow.  So, he carefully stops at each intersection.  He arrives home, parks in the garage and closes the door.  He now counts the loot he got from the robbery and begins to enjoy the fruits of his evil deed. 

​

Of course, the bank is not happy about losing $3 million.  Through some good fortune and hard work the bank is able to identify the robber and put together a package of evidence linking him to the crime.  An organization called Public Unlawfulness Control Commission (PUCC) has jurisdiction over this case.  So, the bank goes to the PUCC and files charges saying please investigate, arrest this criminal and return my money. 

​

The PUCC takes the complaint and sends it to the bank robber for comment and response.  The bank robber's lawyer responds:  This case must be thrown out.  Indeed, my client visited the bank and made a withdrawal.  But, he made it all the way from the bank to his home without anyone noting a violation.  No one even questioned him.  In fact, he passed four different checkpoints unquestioned.  Since he made it home, bringing charges now would be retroactive justice.  And, there is a longstanding prohibition against retroactive justice.

​

The PUCC notes that the trip home was indeed duly monitored and no issues were raised.  They agree that this would be retroactive justice.  And, retroactive justice is strictly against PUCC policy.  Case dismissed.

 

There is still the elephant in the room that the bank was robbed.  But, process and policy overrode that issue.