I think she premeditated how best to secure the finances, cash and household considering the husband told her he wants a divorce that morning. It worked, the court banned him from the house until trial and arrested him with nothing in his pockets... The wife now has everything, can transfer and move funds out of the country (shes a dual citizen), sell everything, pocket all the cash lying around. This whole situation has been treated as guilty until proven innocent on the husband.
And when they go to court and get a divorce with division of the assets she may very well have to bring some of the money back and pass it off to him. That is, IF she did any of these things.
But, what makes you think she was such a criminal mastermind when she called EIGHT HOURS after the fact and then stated she did not want to press charges? You think she somehow KNEW the police and the state would act to take him away anyway?
I understand crimes going to trial with nothing but someones word - but solely based on a biased partys word, to throw someone in jail, ban them from their home, send their mugshot across the web, take fingerprints they never had before, which are probably now permanently on file, and violate their privacy like that is unacceptable.
Talk to your state legislators, the US Congress, and the United States Supreme Court. The police did not just make this idea up. The standard for an arrest has always been the existence of probable cause to believe a crime was committed and that the person arrested committed the crime. Apparently the police believed that probable cause existed, and a judge even concurred.
The husbands character is extremely high, and should be held in just as high esteem as his wife's word - at least until trial; a simply notice to appear would have been the correct route.
Depending on the state he lives in, a notice to appear may not have been an option. In most states an arrest for domestic violence is required or at least strongly encouraged in the event that there exists probable cause to believe the crime occurred. There would be a hue and cry to string up an officer if he cited a man for DV and then he later beat up or killed his significant other. In fact, such scenarios are why the laws changed to compel or encourage DV arrests without the victim's acquiescence.
But violating someone like this on a whim, by probable cause is sick - whether the law allows it or not. The law needs to be changed if so.
You also really do not know what was told to the police and what the police saw when they spoke to the two parties. So, there may be more to this than you know. Unless you ARE the man in question here, you probably only know what has been related to you by the husband and what little you heard in court.
The key element here will be the DA. If the DA pursues this matter then there is likely more than her simple statement.
And, as you may have heard before, if you do not like the law as it has been applied for as long as anyone has been alive and beyond, then speak to your legislators about changing it.