Years ago, a young policeman just happened to see a man in traffic , who to him just had a suspicous look, when they looked at each other. [Going in the opposite direction] at an intersection. To keep it short, the policeman turned around and followed the suspect. The suspects car had stop-light out, so he pulled him over for a courtesy stop. While speaking to the driver/suspect he [the policeman] heard a noise coming from the trunk .... he ordered the driver out of the car , cuffed him and took the keys from the ignition. He opened the trunk and found a 14 year-old girl bound & gagged ... the suspect had just snached her off the street, had not yet [actually] harmed her. Now .... just what kind of horror do you think that cop might have saved her from? All on the suspicion / hunch of a young policeman. Yes, I support stop & frisk.
I support it too. The brake light out gave the officer, at minimum, a reasonable suspicion existed an offense had taken place. Although traffic stops are generally considered as Terry Stops, they are treated different from pedestrian stops. The order to exit the car is permitted under Pennsylvania v. Mimms, and can include, but does not have be, based on any evidentiary facts. The fact the officer may not have pulled the driver over if they had not have connected eyes may be a subjective intention for the stop, however subjective intentions do not play a role in ordinary 4th AM analysis per the federal constitution.
If we didn't allow anyone to leave their home without a justifiable reason for doing so, that would reduce the levels of crime as well, but is that really the society we want to live in? Growing up, among the main comparisons that were made between living in a free society or in one like that which was created in the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, North Korea, or China was the practice of these other countries of violating the rights of citizens to travel unmolested. The very term, "Papers, please" came to epitomize Nazi Germany. Stop-and-frisk policies based on a police officer's intuition or personal suspicion is a policy that can and often is easily abused, and rarely lives up to its promises. Street cops are known more for their biases than for their intelligence and good intuition, so these policies are based on stereotypes rather than objective policing. Those who are the wrong color, are thought to be in the wrong neighborhood, or who aren't dressed right are far more likely to be the victim of a stop-and-frisk. The policy creates a fear-based society and allows the police to collect data on people who are committing no crime. Yes, I know - the media has already created a fear-based society, which is why people support these laws. When they are scared, people will agree to anything in order to obtain the illusion of security.
Whether it is stop and frisk or just stop, or arrest, etc. a crooked cop can lie about anything, but a cursory pat down if an officer believes a suspect/detainee may be armed is a safety concern.