The article illustrates the fallacy of appling quotas to real-world phenomena.

Statistics cited, albeit in a grudging, I suggest, intentionally confusing, way, demonsarate this. It was reported that 68.5% of reported crimes involved suspects reported as appearing black. 55.2% of the stop encounters invoved black subjects. Then 5.3% of the suspected offenders were reported as white, while were 11.1% of the stops.

It must take some sort of "black math" to come with a conclusion other than that not enough blacks and too many whites are presently being stopped, for the relevant set of subjects for a Terry stop are those about whom articulable grounds for suspicion exist. At present, the data suggest that too many whites are being stopped, sort of the way too many grandmothers in wheelchairs are being searched at airports.

Not surprising at all. Arbitrary stops by the police, on the assumption that everyone is guilty until proven innocent, is a hallmark of a society run by Leftists and other social engineering types. Nothing "blue state" about it, even that some people can't recognize the difference, and so applaud it.

NY Cops are stopping 100 people for every 1 arrested, and getting away with it? I guess the ACLU is busy with important stuff, like sniffing out another creche...

My experience of pre-suppression hearing interviews with police witnesses leads me to conclude that most police officers have a reasonable ground for a Terry stop, they don't mqake stops to waste their time. One just has to ask the right questions. Did the subject do anything with his hands when he noticed you? Did he adjust his clothing. Did he attempt to conceal his face, his hands? Did he change speed or direction? How about bulges? Did the bulges show an outline, or indicate weight? It goes on and on.

Most police have a valid, permissible basis for their suspicions, it just needs to be put into words. I used to teach classes on these things to military policemen. The more experienced hands were very attentive and appreciative, because they knew from experience what goes on on the street, and how important it was to be able to put their suspicion into the right words.

We do something interesting in Philadelphia. One can obtain a window sticker from the police indicating advance consent to a vehicle stop. It works. If one's car is stolen, the police may stop it on the slightest suspicion, or no articulable* suspicion.

Look, it's war out there. the slight risk of temporary inconvenience from being asked to show your cards late at night is a small price to pay for geting your car back when it gets swiped.
___________________________________
*"Articulable" is the judicial code word for a reason for a stop other than an impermissible reason. If I have a consent sticker on my car, the police are free to pull it over for DWB.

Don't the numbers disprove your hypothesis?