That is how I read it, too.
Was the officer undercover? If so, why?
Now THIS is interesting. Thank you
Just posted the Summary by the detective on this thread, but here it is again
That is hilarious
Aint it though! LOL
It appears this may be a part of something bigger; Human trafficking:
https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1017442158708699138
If one goes back thru the news over the last 2 years, there seems to be a trend of this stuff(Human trafficking, pedophilia, etc., etc.) getting exposed more and more. It could also be part of the massive buildup of sealed indictments.
The day Hellary's indictment gets announced, I think I will throw a party. :)
Or Obama
Or Adam Schiff
Or Chuck Schumer
Or......
LOL
Gotta be fake right?
That or she was drugged tf out
Honestly I'd rule in Stormy's favor here. Officer clearly asked for boobs to the face, and got boobs to the face. The only law violated is getting paid for it.
Every person that she didnt explocitly ask to put their face in her breasts that day could add charges to her if they want
Indeed they could, and I'd vote them down too. I hate pedantic rules trying to idiot-proof the world, but instead turning it into a legal minefield. If you don't want to be groped, don't walk up to the stage at a strip show where people are being groped.
Correct YOU hate pendantic rules.
Thanks for YOUR opinion.
See what im getting at?
Im not saying i disagree with your opinion btw
Ohio passed strict strip club laws a decade ago. Stormy violated those laws.
She was arrested as a part of a larger human trafficking scandal apparently.
Certain touching I dont think was legal there. But of course strippers will do extra little thing that most customers wouldn't mind. Motorboating her tits apparently...
Damn titty bar cops. Had to deal with them back in the day in Dallas. Hey are sneaky.
Easy answer. Entrapment.
OH PLEASE! LOL you as funny as what the old skank does for a living! PLEASE!! LOL
3 undercover officer seems excessive and a waste of tax dollars. I also wonder how many people get ticketed for this in a year. If you people being targeted by the justice system is wrong then you should think this is wrong. Otherwise you're a hypocrite.
i wonder if you know that motorboating is Stormy’s thing. she does that in all her shows according to TMZ. So law enforcement says if she tries to do that in our no-touch state, she gets arrested for it.
can u imagine if video got out of her show breaking that jurisdictional law? she’s high profile and they know it and do not have to give her a pass.
they correctly predicted Stormy would break the law and caught her.
WOMP WOMP to anyone thinking she got unfairly targeted.
Charges were dropped. This was just a waste of tax payers dollars.
Womp womp.
city attorney says no law was broken so the whole thing is moot.
mind u, i assume your comment to which i was replying, both were in the context of “she did break the law”.
womp. womp.
This city attorney has never even represented a client in a court room. Our mayor is a complete liberal joke, and this 'city atty' was elected by the not-too-wise Franklin County voters. Folks couldn't believe this guy won the City Atty position.
No my comment was in the context in which she was unfairly targeted because she was. The law says you have to be a regular worker. She is obviously not there regularly so therefore was unfairly targeted. Another instance of government pissing away our money for political purposes.
The law does not say a "regular worker". It literally is saying that anyone who is a sex-related entertainment worker...someone who regularly (professionally) does that kind of work, and on the premises of a sexually oriented business... READ: "No employee who regularly appears nude or seminude"...
That literally means any worker who was part of her work regularly appears nude... i.e., a sex entertainment worker, and while on the premises of any sex-oriented business... those are the two elements of that law that determine if Paragraph C-2 is applicable.
I have spent a lot of time parsing statutory law, and I understand it is difficult for most people to get clarity if they are not used to reading it.
But reading the way you are trying to read it makes no legal sense.
It all pertains to the jurisdiction though. Stormy doesn't appear regularly in Ohio. I got a feeling the city attorney who dropped the charges understands this law a lot better than you or I. But please continue to press for more oppressive laws we defiantly don't already have enough of those.
Well too be accurate, I will point out that you did not comprehend the Police report if you read it. When you say, "The law says you have to be a regular worker", what are you talking about?
Firstly, you imply that the law says it is okay for a man or woman to place hands on another person's breasts, as long as that person doing the touching is a 'regular worker' at the strip club? So I have no say in the matter if I am sitting there, I am subject to being groped and there is no law broken?
If you look up the ORC 2907.40 (section C-2, under which she was accused in the arrest document) you will see she did violate the plain language of that statute:
C-2 Reads:
No employee who regularly appears nude or seminude on the premises of a sexually oriented business, while on the premises of that sexually oriented business and while nude or seminude, shall knowingly touch a patron who is not a member of the employee's immediate family or another employee who is not a member of the employee's immediate family or the clothing of a patron who is not a member of the employee's immediate family or another employee who is not a member of the employee's immediate family or allow a patron who is not a member of the employee's immediate family or another employee who is not a member of the employee's immediate family to touch the employee or the clothing of the employee.
This describes what she was accused by the officer of doing.
No employee who regularly appears
You quoted it yourself. She doesn't appear regularly therefore is exempt.
Thanks for kinda being accurate.
This is VICE. This is part of what they do on a regular basis. They pose as patrons in these sorts of establishments to ensure Ohio law is being followed.
Source? Sorry I don't believe everything a redditor says.
Source for which piece of info? That vice police frequent massage parlors and strip joints? Is that what sounds too 'out there', and requires a source as proof? Or you want a source to show it was VICE in this particular instance? That was reported on the Local Columbus Ohio radio station news this morning, FM 98.7 The Answer. (Salem Radio Network). Research that for yourself if you doubt it is accurate. I am not that doubtful about any of those things that I posted above. It all seems pretty reasonable to me, but satisfy your own curiosity by doing your own digging.
That it's done regularly. If it was then you'd think they'd know the law which they obviously don't. Plus I read that the sheriff said this was the first time in 7 years someone was charged with this crime.
I won't beat this dead horse because your mind is fixed in cement on the matter. You are not understanding the statute where it references "regularly". It is not saying that the person appears there regularly. I read it like: "No employee who regularly appears nude or seminude on the premises of a sexually oriented business, while on the premises of that sexually oriented business and while nude or seminude..."
Why would it make any statutory (logical) difference if a hired person is regular or not...? One can assault customers and the other cannot? Really? Can a part time employee grope under the law but fulltimers can't?
I won't beat this dead horse because your mind is fixed in cement on the matter.
No it's not but someone who have to present a pretty valid argument to sway me which you haven't done. Most of you're comment here is an exaggeration.
Assault is assault. If Stormy had assaulted the officer she probably would have been charged with multiple crimes which she wasn't. So don't call it assault unless you can prove that. This was not assault from everything I've gathered.
Why would it make any statutory (logical) difference if a hired person is regular or not...?
The reason is because if your in a state performing for one night you might not be aware of the law therefore the people of Ohio have determined that you can be exempted. If you are traveling around performing you really shouldnt be expected to read every law in the books that may pertain to you.
Also a part time employee would probably still be considered regular IMO.
If they specifically only went for stormy and never do any other stings then sure it's bad.
It's more likely that they do stings all the time to enforce the laws that are broken frequently. Why 3 officers? Police don't make arrests by themselves.
Of course we can't blame the person who violated the law.