"Mistake was made" in Stormy Daniels' strip club arrest, Ohio police chief says
When you break the law, you pay the price -- and I am finally glad to see this whore getting what she deserves -- how she wasn't charged with assault on top of indecent touching is an outrage -- she basically slapped one of her breasts against the undercover cop's face, rendering him helpless and in fear for his life; but they don't charge her for assault?
Then to make things worse, they drop the charges against her? Obama and the Deep State continues to obstruct justice time and time again -- they need to be stopped.
The decision to drop the charges had nothing to do with Trump. Daniels was simply not guilty of the crime for which she was improperly arrested. The following is from the link you provided:
“The Community Defense Act prohibits dancers from touching customers and customers touching dancers - excluding immediate family members. The law, however, only applies to nude or semi-nude dancers who "regularly" perform at the venues. Thursday afternoon, city prosecutors dropped the charges, saying the law can't be enforced because Daniels has only appeared once at the Columbus club, on July 11.”
In order to be found guilty, the prosecution must prove each and every element of the crime. The crime for which Daniels was arrested had two elements: (1) prohibited touching; and (2) the charged person regularly performed at the venue. The second element could not be established because Daniels made only one appearance at the club.
CONCLUSION: A basic tenet of criminal law is that in order to convict a defendant the prosecution must prove each and every element of the crime as that crime is defined by statute. If there are a six elements to a crime and the prosecution is only prepared to prove five of them charges must be dropped. Stormy Daniels did not violate The Community Defense Act because she was not a regular performer at the club.
Just for your entertainment, I will give you an example of how important it is to prove every element of a crime. The following is an actual case which was discussed in my criminal law class.
Jack and John were walking down the street on a rainy winter night. They were cold, hungry and desperately needed shelter. They spotted a house that looked as though no one was home so they broke into it. While inside they noticed expensive silverware and other valuables including $2,000 in cash which they decided to steal. They fed themselves and fell asleep. In the morning they took their stolen goods and left.
The criminal statute in their state described burglary as “breaking and entering with the intent to commit a felony therein.” The statute also provided that the theft of more that $1,000 was a felony. The question is: Did Jack and John commit burglary? The answer is no.
Proving the breaking and entering part of the statute was easy, and proving felony theft was also a given. However, the statute had one more element: the requisite intent or motive. The statue required that the intent (motive) for the breaking and entering was to commit a felony once inside. If a defendant broke into the dwelling for any other purpose (such as to seek shelter from the elements or make a sandwich or two) he would not be guilty of burglary. In the given case, the intent to commit a felony was not formed until after the break-in and the burglary conviction was overturned on appeal.
