Is ‘Stop and Frisk' Unconstitutional?  
          Stop and Frisk is a strategy that police officers used to reduce crime in an area by stopping and searching people they "consider" suspicious. This policy unfairly targets an individual out of a suspicion that they are a criminal or a threat to the community. It targets specific ethnicities that makes them feel isolated and vulnerable. Stop and Frisk should be deemed as unconstitutional because it's a  racial offense to minorities such as African-American and Latinos.
The stop and frisk policy originated from British Law in a number of American courts. According with English common law, a police officer has the power to stop, question, and frisk suspects given reasonable circumstances. This power is given upon the standard of reasonable suspicion. Stop-and-Frisk practices were made into an area of concern by the Supreme Court when they encountered the case of Terry v. Ohio. The Court's decision made suspicion of danger to an officer grounds for a "reasonable search".The political issue, ‘Stop and Frisk has been criticized for its targeting of minority communities. Seemingly , every young black or Latino male resident of a city has his own story of being harassed by a police officer for reasons unknown or unjust. ‘Stop and Frisk' was a response to the city's crime rates in the 1980s and early 90s when murder levels were among the highest in the country. The program's' goal is to prevent crime before it occurs by stopping and sometimes searching person suspected on the verge of committing a criminal act.
 Stop and Frisk should be deemed as unconstitutional because it belittles a  person and  there right as an American. It's embarrassing to minorities that has been affected by this policy. There is no small coincidence it's racial profiling in it most basic and blatant form. In 2011, 685,724 people stopped by NYPD. 87 percent were Black and Latino. This is a form of external oppression because it's an unjust exercise of authority that traumatizes minorities.Those that are oppressed tend to feel less empowered and more vulnerable.In an article  titled 'Stop and Frisk' May Be Working—But Is It Racist? It  states ,  "It was very confusing to me," Guzman recently told me. "Before that incident I thought [the police] were heroes. When they violated me like that, it was like seeing Batman or Superman slap a baby." This proves  proves that he idealized the police and held them in a high regard. That reality was shattered when he was stopped and frisked.This reveals that oppression can wipe away an identity and make one feel weak and inferior in a split of a second.            
Stop and Frisk exists primarily to black and latino neighborhoods. The court found the NYPD guilty of violating both the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits racially discriminatory policing, and the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Most notably, the increase in frisks and arrests in New York didn't decrease the drop in crime. Rather, it came after the drop in crime.Under the NYPD's policy, targeting the ‘right people' means stopping people in part because of their race. Throughout January 2004 and June 2012 , 4.4 million were stop and frisked, yet only 1.5 percent of frisks found weapons. In about 83 percent of cases, the person stopped was black or Hispanic. This is evident that the police carried out more stops on black and Hispanic than of whites. The city has consistently said that the inequality was justified because minority citizens commit more crimes.This reasoning is flawed because the stopped population is overwhelmingl y innocent — not criminal.
       In conclusion, Stop and Frisk should be deemed as unconstitutional because this was  found that the practices were racially discriminatory in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It discriminates against African-Americans and Hispanics that most are found innocent. In an Stop and Frisk article it states, " We most certainly have to address the issue of crime prevention in NY and in cities around the nation… it's up to us to save ourselves." It is evident that these individuals recognize their oppression and have agreed to protest the system. They want to overcome their oppression and no longer want