This was a police charge. Prosecutors opted not to prosecute. Prosecutorial discretion at work. https://twitter.com/AndrewMCrespo/status/1291758677251239937

https://www.nj.com/essex/2020/08/cyber-harassment-charges-dropped-against-five-who-tweeted-photo-of-nj-cop-at-protest.html

A lot of folks don't realize that police charges are not the same as a prosecutor filing a charging document. There's an intermediate step where prosecutors review the evidence that the police provide before deciding whether or not to formally institute prosecution.

Police frequently don't know the law (they are not lawyers). They may believe a crime has been committed, but a prosecutor with legal expertise who understands the burden of proof and criminal statutes and fourth amendment law is the person who is qualified to decide that.

Whether a crime has been committed and whether a prosecutor can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime has been committed are different things. A prosecutor examines 1) the fact pattern and 2) legal precedent.

Cops only need probable cause to arrest. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" to convict is a much higher legal standard.

There are three main burdens of proof that a crime has been committed, in increasing order of difficulty to prove:

1) reasonable articulable suspicion to stop a person

2) probable cause to arrest a person

3) beyond a reasonable doubt to convict a person

It's like a little funnel of increasing difficulty. The cops are involved with the first two, and the prosecutor is involved with the third. But if a prosecutor finds that the cops messed up on the first two, they may legally determine that the case can't be prosecuted at all.