A judge has struck down New York’s notorious “Stop and Frisk” regime. Scott Lemieux explains the reasoning behind the decision in The American Prospect:

In a major victory for civil rights and civil liberties, a United States District Court Judge has held that the New York City Police Department’s (NYPD) stop-and-frisk policies are unconstitutional. Judge Shira Scheindlin’s opinion justifying the ruling is a tour de force. Carefully assessing both systematic evidence and the cases of individual litigants, Judge Scheindlin leaves no serious doubt that the NYPD’s policies are inconsistent with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

The judge’s drew heavily on research in making up her mind. Stop-and-frisks are justified based on an officier’s reasonable suspicion that the target is up to no good, but statistics show that nearly 90% of stop-and-frisks come up empty. If cops guess wrong nearly 90% of the time, how well-founded could their suspicions possibly be? Not strong enough to justify impinging on the rights of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, the judge decided.