Are you sure you want to argue that stop and frisk was not racist?
I'm probably going to regret asking this but, as I understand it, the "stop and search" policy was -- or was said to be, at least -- primarily directed against members of street gangs in particular areas.
That is, the NYPD were targeting -- or were supposed to be targeting -- people they knew were, or whom they believed to be, associated with violent, racially-based, street gangs, rather then members of ethnic minorities in general, so it would follow that they'd be searching a disproportionate number of members of particular racial groups, depending on which areas and gangs they were targeting.
So my question is whether they were, in fact, searching people they knew (or thought they knew) were associated with particular gangs, and thus likely to be carrying guns illegally, or whether they were simply searching any young men and women who were members of the racial group from which the gangs recruited, on the off-chance they might be involved with gang activities.
Both would lead to members of particular ethnic groups being searched in disproportionate numbers, but were the subjects of the searches primarily known gang-members and their associates or were they simply people going about their lawful business who happened to be the wrong colour in the wrong place at the wrong time?
While there are still, at least potentially, some disturbing civil liberties issues that I would want to consider, I'd want to know more about the details of how the "stop and frisk" policy was implemented before concluding it was racist in intent, I think, though it may have been questionable for other reasons.
For example, were officers conducting the searches required to submit reports detailing why they chose to search some individuals and not others? If they were, do we know the reasons they gave for searching the people they did?