Recently a federal judge ruled New York City’s policy of “stop and frisk” unconstitutional. Without sinking into legal terms, for which I’m singularly unqualified, I can understand the judge’s ruling in terms of the Constitution’s stated purpose to balance justice, personal freedom, and “domestic tranquility.” Without a doubt, these are difficult balances to maintain in our modern society. We no longer carry muskets to protect us from foreign invaders; and our need for an armed civilian militia is anachronistic. But our inner cities are a hotbed for all kinds of crime; and youth gangs, among others, carry weapons. Moreover, we are still in the midst of a drug prohibition era where the war against controlled substances has continuously escalated until America now holds 25% of the world’s prisoner population. So “stop and frisk” may seem like a logical response to stem a tide of violent crime and enforce drug laws.

Both those who argue for the NY policy and those who argue against it quote statistics to make their case. And their arguments are the problem. Statistics can help us identify an issue at the societal level. However, when policies are created to deal with the same issue at an individual level, we run into the problem of inapplicability. There is no diet suitable for every individual, just as there is not one ideal dress size for every woman. Madison Avenue has done well to convince us otherwise (yes, I’m a fan of Mad Men). But politicians and legislators would be wise to disagree. Each of us—including police officers—has to deal with unique situations, calling for critical judgment appropriate to the moment. Speaking generally, has the NY policy prevented some crime? And has it violated personal freedom in some cases? Most likely, the answer to both questions is “yes.” So should we then keep a policy that has had some success in crime prevention or should we abolish a policy that seems to violate our civil rights? The dilemma of the NY police is that they are caught in the middle of a debate that they cannot resolve at this general level.

Well, actually they could be part of the solution if the policy makers would stop lobbing statistics at each other and began addressing the real problem. What specific guidance is given the officer at the moment he spies suspicious activity. For example, how is “suspicious” activity defined? Is it somebody testing the locks on every door passed on a street? Or is it somebody wearing a “hoody?” What kind of review is given to each and every “stop and frisk” occurrence? Once again, I’m no legal expert and certainly not a “licensed” bureaucrat; but I offer a simple solution for consideration. Why not have officers provide a citizen stopped and frisked with an official form that states the officer’s name and the reason for his action? I’m not asking the officer to do more that he/she would in issuing a traffic ticket. In fact, he/she might write no more than “loitering in front of a liquor store” or “waving a gun-like item in public.” But the form would give the citizen the right to question the officer’s rationale before a police board or before the courts. Of course, this kind of feedback should be backstopped by enhanced police training. Profiling comes in many forms, not just racial. What the President recently said—“Am I ringing as much bias out of myself as I can”—most especially applies to officers attempting to investigate suspicious activities and keep our streets safe. What we don’t need is the NY mayor pulling statistics out of the hat that attribute a decline in serious crime solely to the “stop and frisk” policy. Perhaps the same correlation could be made to communities coming together to police themselves or to the constructive outlets provided youth by concerned citizens or to an increase in police presence on public streets or to the decline in sugar intake during the same period? That last item aside, there are probably many correlations that could be “creatively” made. But the task before us is not to win an argument but to solve a problem that affects the day-to-day practice of officers doing their best to keep us safe while respecting our civil rights.

I do respect statistical analysis, but it does not and cannot replace individual judgment in real situations.