It is my understanding that the original “crime” for which Police contact was initiated was that Eric Garner was selling loose, or single cigarettes. Is the NYPD so free with time that this rises to the level of a big crime? This sounds like an insignificant reason to Police involvement, but I have no experience with NYC. How big a deal is the selling of individual cigarettes in NYC?
A related question: why is it illegal to sell “loosies?” The tax has already been paid by whomever bought the original pack of cigarettes.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/smoke/ste-enforcement-faq.pdf
It appears they don’t want low cost cigarette options in order to make smoking less accessible to kids. Also I presume making sure taxes are collected is important. There’s no guarantee that the proper taxes were paid on the original pack - smuggling cigarettes is still a profitable activity.
In this particular case I’ve read that nearby merchants called in a complaint that he was selling loosies near their stores, but I haven’t familiarized myself with the specifics.
Less to do with untaxed cigarettes, more to do with busting folks for minor crimes 'cause they might just find bigger things to charge them with.
See also: Broken Windows Theory.
Related question.
I swear I read somewhere that no cigarettes were found on Eric Garner at that time i.e. after the arrest, impossible to search for that now, anyone know for sure (cite preferred of course)?
CMC fnord!
I thought I had read that: the police were called there because of a fight; Gardner had been trying to break up the fight, and the police focussed on him because of his history of selling cigarettes, something they were focussed on for a while; when he started resisting, saying he wasn’t doing anything wrong at that time, it escalated from there (“How dare he refuse to stand still and be arrested whenever we want to arrest him?”). After the (attempted) arrest, the story is that there were no cigarettes on him, so the police really had no real reason or probable cause to arrest him and no specific complaint about him at that time.
However, given what passes for journalism nowadays, this may not be correct.
I assumed they targeted Mr Garner only after the scourge of jaywalking had been eliminated.
I heard Garner deny any wrongdoing on the video before they tried to arrest him. I wonder what probable cause the police had to initiate an arrest.
It’s hard to hear what the cops said but it looks like he was arrested for not consenting to a search and defending himself from the cop trying to grab him.
He had a list of priors and therefore knew how-to/how-not-to interact with police. He chose to not cooperate with the police and even pushed the cops hands away. Unfortunately, without any reliable A/V footage the specific conversation that lead to “the events” is unknown. That all being said, STFU and cooperate with the police and do not touch them. AFAIK, there is no such thing as defending yourself against the police.
I’m reasonably, but not entirely, certain the anonymous tip was enough for probable cause.
His previous arrest record I’m even less certain about but, “round up the usual suspects” most likely isn’t just a fiction trope. Hopefully one of our lawyers can enlighten us.
CMC fnord!
So you are laying on the ground and five of NYCs finest are beating you with their nightsticks. After a bit you start to wonder if you are going to survive the beating. Is it ok then to try and defend yourself?
Could be due to the Broken Windows theory being put into practice in NYC:
*The main notion of the broken window theory is that small crimes can make way for larger crimes. If the “petty” criminals are often overlooked and given tacit permission to do what they want, then their level of criminality might escalate from petty crimes to more serious offenses. Bratton’s goal was to attack while the offenders are still “green”, as it would prevent an escalation to more serious criminal acts in the future. According to the 2001 study of crime trends in New York by George Kelling and William Sousa, rates of both petty and serious crime fell suddenly and significantly, and continued to drop for the following ten years.
However, some later research strongly suggested that there was no benefit from the targeting of petty crime. The crime reduction may have been a result of the decrease of crime across America and other factors like the 39% drop in NYC’s unemployment rate.*
Here is a recent article calling for an end to this practice:
Under the broken windows strategy, police officers aggressively target low-level crime as a way of deterring more serious crime. It’s a policing approach that has come under heightened scrutiny since NYPD officer Daniel Pantaleo killed the 43-year-old Garner during an arrest for selling untaxed cigarettes – a classic example of a broken windows enforcement.
For the most part, anonymous tips are NOT sufficient to establish probable cause. “Probable cause” has a specific meaning in the law but it is thrown around inappropriately all the time.
I don’t what the fact the Garner denied wrongdoing has to do with it. It is very rare indeed where a suspect says, “Alright. I did it. You got me”. Its not until we get out the cattle prods and waterboards that that happens. (Just kidding, of course.)
I’m not sure of the law in NY but in NJ you are not permitted to resist arrest even if you know it to be unlawful. You are permitted to use force against unlawful force being applied during any arrest. I can’t cite any cases where that defense has been used.
It’s illegal because a legislature created a law that made it illegal and the governor signed it.
I seem to remember some past brouhaha concerning the BATFE harassing several American Indian tribes for selling duty-free (no tax paid) cigarettes to anyone who wanted a car or truck load. Some of the tax-free cigarettes were being resold outside the reservation.
In Chicago, cigarettes sell for around $10 per pack and about $7 of that is city, county, state, and federal taxes.
Buy a non-taxed carton (200 cigarettes) for $20. Sell loosies for 50 cents a piece netting $80 per carton sold.
Technically there is but good luck getting it to work for you.
I should hope you’re kidding. According to Congress and the internal Panetta Review, even waterboarding does not get meaningful information. 
IIRC, you are entitled to defend yourself from anyone, law enforcement or not, with reasonable force. It’s the same “self defence” law. If the law enforcement officer is not entitled to touch you or restrain you or take you away because he doesn’t have the legal grounds to do so, then he is no different than any other assailant.
the problem comes in proving the “no legal grounds”. you can shoot an unarmed man for back-talk, you can choke someone to death for resisting a questionable arrest, and it seems if you are law enforcement you get the benefit of the doubt. Plus, if a law enforcement officer honestly and reasonably believes he is following the law, then he is in the right. So anyone on the other side of such altercation better be damned sure they are right and the officer is definitely completely and knowingly wrong.
Keep in mind that Gardner was known to be selling “loosies” from time to time. Therefore, if the police searched him and found a wad of cash - say $30 or $80 or $210 or something - they could reasonably assume this was proceeds of such a crime, and impound it until he hired a lawyer to get it back. In those circumstances, would you want the police rifling through your pockets 'to look for a weapon"?