Pareene is relentless:
Kelly: From the beginning, we’ve combined this strategy with a proactive policy of engagement. We stop and question individuals about whom we have reasonable suspicion. This is a widely utilized and lawful police tactic, upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in its 1968 decision, Terry v. Ohio, and authorized by New York State Criminal Procedure Law and the New York state constitution. Every state in the country has a variant of this statute, as does federal law; it is fundamental to policing.
The “worksheet” officers must fill out after carrying out a stop-and-frisk contains boxes in which police officers can explain what led to the frisking — what the “reasonable suspicion” was, in other words. The single most common reason for a stop in the year 2008 was “furtive movements.” The third-most common was “other.” “Furtive movements” is cited in more than half of the forms reviewed by criminologist Jeffrey Fagan, a plaintiff’s witness in the class-action suit against the NYPD. Fagan, who believes a stop based solely on “furtive movements” is an unconstitutional stop, has calculated that the NYPD has carried out more than 200,000 illegal stop-and-frisks.
Read the whole thing. 400,000 young black men have had their futures ruined by patent racial profiling for petty marijuana possession. End racial profiling (only 11 percent of “stop and frisks” were initiated by a description of an alleged criminal and 88 percent of stops were of innocent people, overwhelmingly men of color, doing something “furtive”). And end Prohibition. Then fight crime.