If the car was improperly parked that may be cause for the towing, even though the car was "safely parked". For example, if state or local law prohibited parking there and towing was allowed as a remedy for the violation then that is indeed relevant to the towing issue you raise. So did the officer give a reason for the tow? If so, then you need to address as part of your defense. Unless officer stated it was towed because of the alleged license violation then the license issue doesn't affect whether the tow was valid. That you still have not answered the question regarding the reason for the tow, I'm guessing you don't want to provide it because you don't want to hear that the tow may have been valid. That's fine, but when you get to the judge the judge will very much be interested in the reason for the tow. If you aren't prepared to answer that then you may end up losing even despite the apparent conflict of interest the officer has because his wife owns the firm that towed the car. Don't assume that the apparent conflict will be a magic wand that will make everything else go away. I've seen a lot of pro se parties lose cases over the years because they make mistakes based on erroneous assumption, like the assumption that one fact will automatically render everything else irrelevant. The best prepared parties in court are those who are prepared for every possible eventuality, even if it's not very likely. Better to be prepared and not need it than it is to not be prepared and get caught flat-footed when it turns out the judge thinks it is relevant.
