Stop and Frisk is based on so called Terry stops. There doesn't have to be suspicion of a weapon to stop a person, just to frisk them. However, such stops (ev

Stop and Frisk is based on so called Terry stops. There doesn't have to be suspicion of a weapon to stop a person, just to frisk them. However, such stops (even before a search) must be based on specific and articulable facts... basically if a cop stops a person, they have to be able to say why, exactly, they stopped them. Further, those facts have to be enough to make a reasonable person believe a crime has been, is being, or will be committed by the individual. That's just to stop a person. The pat down is if they believe the individual has a weapon. If they can plainly tell that the item found by feeling it is contraband (by feel), then that's legit. Now in practice, this isn't what seems to be happening in NY. The stops and the searches don't meet the requirements that courts have set. However, young poor people don't generally get their day in court. Instead, they get plea agreements, which are substantially lighter then what they would get if they went to court. Public defenders and pro bono lawyers for the urban poor often don't have enough resources to do much else but advise their client to take the plea. There is good news however, in that class action status has been granted to a law suit (or at least one) against the NYPD. Class actions can mean that the NYPD can be forced to change their policy. Anyway, if you are stopped while driving, that is also an extension of the Terry stop doctrine, save that police have the power to make people exit their vehicle in most cases.