US Commission on Civil Rights finds NYPD guilty of racial profiling.
The 1977 and 1999 cases of Abner Louima's and Amadau Diallo's brutality at the hands of the NYPD brought quick attention to the department for its practice of racial profiling. In May of 2000 the United States Commission on Civil Rights announced that the New York police department uses racial profiling tactics in their determinations of who to "stop and frisk."

The commission recommended that an independent prosecutor be appointed to investigate the department on serious claims of police misconduct and that the department establish a minority recruitment unit.

NYPD's Anti-Profiling Policy Announced
In March, 2002 Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly issued orders clarifying the department's attitude toward racial profiling. The order states that the NYPD may not use "race, color, ethnicity or national origin as the determinate factor for initiating police action." As benign yet hopeful as this statement is, it was criticized by many as unnecessary. Patrolmen's Benevolent Association President Patrick J. Lynch commented, "I didn't hear any complaints that police officers at the World Trade Center were asking people about their race or ethnicity before risking their lives to rescue them." Describing the Commissioner's order as "not worth the paper it's printed on," the PBA leader said, "I don't feel there is a need to address something that police officers are not doing."

Profiling at Ground Zero puts men out of business
Case closed, right? Not judging by the continuous backdrop of racial profiling allegations aimed at the NYPD. And the instances do indeed extend right to "ground zero", where in mid-October of 2001, police arrested three Pakistani men who had been hired to clean debris from the September 11 disaster from Chase Manhattan Bank. Although they had a legitimate reason for being there, the men were arrested for trespassing and their equipment was confiscated. Without their equipment, they were not able to do business. The case against them was ultimately dropped for lack of evidence.

The Village Voice poll
So how do they decide who to stop? In the case of the building cleaners it only took being of Middle Eastern descent. In the case of other minorities of NYC, here are the results of an unofficial poll from the Village Voice of black and white undercover officers who responded anonymously:

[10%] A baseball cap, worn at any angle, accounts for 10 percent of their stops.
[20%] A bandanna, particularly red or blue, hints at gang involvement and accounts for 20 percent of stops.
[20%] An XXL hooded sweat top, or "hoodie," accounts for 20 percent of stops.
[30%] Sagging, baggy trousers, especially dungarees, account for 30 percent of stops.
[10%] Exposed plaid boxer shorts account for 10 percent of stops.
[10%] Expensive high-top sneakers--unlaced, suggesting that the person may have done prison time--account for 10 percent of stops.


Tip of the Iceberg
Is the problem just worse in New York City? Evidence indicates that the cultural basis for racial profiling is broad based. A 1995 survey published in the Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education reports that when asked to close their eyes and envision a drug addict, 95% of those polled envisioned a black person. But statistics show that the percentage of black American drug users is similar to the percentage of blacks in the total populations; 13%. The percentage of American drug users that are white is 72%. Even though 13% of American drug users are black, they are 38% of those arrested, 59% of those convicted, and 74% of those sentenced to prison for drug offenses.