The only thing surprising to me about this ruling is that this "stop and frisk" practice has been going on so long in NYC, and is only now getting the judicial smack down. I'm a little disappointed that so much of the focus is on the racial disparity of the policy. Even if there was no racial component the practice is equally offensive - it is clear from the very forms used to justify the stops that the stops did not pass constitutional muster (requiring a reasonable, articulable suspicion that a crime was being committed, had been committed, or was about to be committed). That should be the primary basis for the decision -- the racial aspect should be the icing on the cake.
Maybe it's just playing the race card because they feel that the overwhelmingly liberal populace of that area couldn't give a damn about the 4th amendment so long as it wasn't them that was being inconvenienced, but would give a damn about "racist" policies.
Regardless of the window dressing put on it, it is a good ruling and I'm glad that the politicians and police are bent out of shape about it. I particularly like that the judge appears to intend to order the NYPD to start using on-body cameras in a test borough. I'd like to see on-body cameras required for all police, period. I believe that the "word" of a police officer carries too much judicial weight. Judicial predisposition to take the officer's word at face value may have been necessary at one point, but with technology today there's little reason not to have a recording (at least audio, but preferably audio and video) of every single interaction between a police officer and a citizen - especially interactions that result in arrest. The police should be all for such a requirement as it would do nothing but prove the constitutionality of their actions.
The ruling itself is a pretty decent read (for those who, like me, like to read such things). It is
here if you want to read it.