Judging a book by it's cover, or a person by their nationality, or color of their skin is wrong and that is why a US court ruled that the NYPD's stop-and-frisk practice is unconstitutional.
In the court's 198-page ruling, Judge Shira Sheindlin found the NYPD violates New Yorkers’ Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and also found that these practices were racially discriminatory in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The federal court found the New York City Police Department’s highly controversial stop-and-frisk practices unconstitutional. In her thorough, 198-page ruling, Judge Shira Sheindlin found the NYPD’s practices to violate New Yorkers’ Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and also found that the practices were racially discriminatory in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Racial Profiling refers to the discriminatory practice by law enforcement officials of targeting individuals for suspicion of crime based on the individual's race, ethnicity, religion or national origin. Criminal profiling is the reliance on a group of characteristics they believe to be associated with crime.
Examples of racial profiling are the use of race to determine which drivers to stop for minor traffic violations commonly referred to as driving while black or brown, or the use of race to determine which pedestrians to search for illegal contraband.