We have one person alleging that he represents a victimized class. His proof of this is the combination of population statistics matched against the number of stops.
Gee... How many stops led to arrest? Were stops more likely in certain communities, where crime is more likely and which happen to be majority black? Don't know... the data's not given.
This is no different than the BS about traffic stops. I can only hope that the various chiefs of police stand up to this one better than they did to traffic stops. (Incidentally, I'm aware, but don't currently have links to, one study that was suppressed and unfunded when it wasn't supporting racial bias; it was later published privately.)
Perhaps a review of the basis of a stop and frisk is in order. In the case of
Terry v Ohio, a Cleveland police detective observed Terry and others in front of a business. He noticed that they repeatedly (24 times!) passed in front of the business, looking inside, then returning to an alleyway. He recognized their activities as being consistent with casing the store for a robbery; an act that almost invariably involves some weapon. On making contact with them, they were noncooperative and evasive. He quickly seized and turned Terry, checking his outer garments and found a revolver. The court ruled that, when an officer is in possession of facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable man to believe that crime is afoot, he may briefly detain the person in order to confirm or dispell that reasonable suspicion. And, when there is reason to believe that there may be weapons involved, he may conduct a limited search of the person to make sure that there are no weapons.
We merely hold today that where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, where in the course of investigating this behavior he identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others' safety, he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him. (Chief Justice Warren writing for the majority)
There is no reason why an officer, rightfully but forcibly confronting a person suspected of a serious crime, should have to ask one question and take the risk that the answer might be a bullet. (Justice Harlan in a concurring opinion)
Stop & frisk is an essential tool for law enforcement, and most cops are professional. They don't do stop & frisks without reasonable, articulable suspicion. But, no matter what, stop and frisk is a vital tool for officer and public safety. The risk of confronting armed suspects is even greater today than in 1968; there are more thugs with bigger and better guns today than 39 years ago. They won't be stopped, no matter what is said. Unless cops stop doing anything.
