Only partially. The NYPD was essentially forced by lawsuits and political pressure to shut down stop and frisk. The ACLU lawsuit that parent mentioned, required that police have a valid reason to stop and frisk someone in advance. Think of this as having a business justification for every expense at a company that scrutinizes these requests. Subsequent lawsuits shut down the ability to stop and frisk individuals coming and going from public housing[0]. On top of this, the new NYC mayor, De Blasio, wanted to shut down stop and frisk altogether (one of his major campaign planks).

0: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/nyregion/new-york-police-... for more information

No, it’s more like it doesn’t accomplish anything.

The point of stop and frisk is essentially to hassle everyone in a perceived high crime area and grab people with warrants, etc.

My dad worked in NYC public housing in the 90s, and these aggressive policing measures were both effective and welcomed (to a point) by the community, as it pushed out people that were ruining their homes and lives.

Like all things bureaucracy, the metrics ended up mattering more than reality. Aggressive policing became systematic harassment and the police go out of their way to not see things. That’s why you can walk through Rockefeller Center and observe scam cartoon characters hustle tourists 6 feet away from police details. Good metrics are valued higher than the public.

There'd be a massive backlash if they randomly started frisking white officegoers and the like.

Why wouldn't you read it as "we eliminated 675k racially-motivated stop-and-frisks, and are left with 10k non-racially-motivated ones."