Frankly, I could care less about the profiling aspect of stop & frisk. I don’t care if they are stopping people because they are black, hispanic, or wearing the wrong clothes.
I care about this because there is one—and only one—reason that police officers should be stopping people on the street: because they have a reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in (or will imminently be involved in) criminal activity. Given the sheer number of people who are stopped under this program every year, combined with the relatively low arrest/summons rate resulting from stop & frisk stops, it is clear to me that the stop and frisk program systematically violates the “reasonable suspicion” standard.
To put it another way (if this makes any sense), my concern is not that the NYPD is stopping people for the wrong reasons (e.g., profiling), but rather that the NYPD is NOT stopping people for the right reason (e.g., reasonable suspicion).
It is a gross expansion of police authority (and it is by no means the only one), which is why I think any conservative ought to be concerned.
Sure...but the possible violation of constitutional rights always has to be balanced with the right of the public to a reasonable expectation of safety. The constitution is not a suicide pact. What would invalidate the stop and frisk laws? If they found that there was no diminution of crime. Since there was a sizable decrease in crime, it proves the s and f laws were justified.