Stop-and-Frisk Ruling: Lines That We Want on T-Shirts

A judge said the practice was unconstitutional. And she said it well. Here are the highlights. 

NYPD officers oversee a demonstration against stop and frisk. (Getty Images)

(The Root) -- In a decision today, a federal court deemed the New York City Police Department's use of its stop-and-frisk tactic "indirect racial profiling" that allowed police officers to unfairly target blacks and Hispanics far more than whites. More to the point: U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin said it was unconstitutional, accused city officials of turning a blind eye and ordered major fixes and oversight.

And she said it well. Here are some of the highlights you won't want to miss -- and might even find yourself repeating -- from her takedown of the deeply flawed crime-fighting tactic.

The basic disparity:

The New York City Police Department (“NYPD”) made 4.4 million stops between January 2004 and June 2012. Over 80% of these 4.4 million stops were of blacks or Hispanics. 

Which, of couse, has a human side: 

In each of these stops a person’s life was interrupted.

Here's how stop and frisk as currently used is a disaster for black and brown people:

First, as reflected in Dr. Fagan’s Table 5, the NYPD carries out more stops in areas with more black and Hispanic residents, even when other relevant variables are held constant ...

Here's another way: 

Second, as reflected in Dr. Fagan’s Table 7, within any area, regardless of its racial composition, blacks and Hispanics are more likely to be stopped than whites.