Therein lies the problem, what it "might/could" do in relation to its demonstrable effectiveness and cost to the population. Rightness or wrongness in the general sense aside, for the argument that it should be conducted because it's effective to be valid, you have to demonstrate that it is effective. The numbers roughly a half million stops per year and increasing, with a relatively flat roughly 10% rate of evidence of criminal activity found, based on arrest and citation numbers, over the past decade are not indicative of effectiveness. Stop enough people of course you're going to find evidence of crimes, however,the marginal success rate is more indicative of random luck than a targeted and effective plan which does not impede the lives of hundreds of thousands every year.
Just because the crime rate dropped at some point during the period in which the stop and frisk policies were enacted does not mean there is correlation, let alone causation. That is similar to the point of this
Picture which coincidentally shows the murder rates of NYC. Just because two things can be matched up, does not mean they're related.
Data related to NYC Stop and Frisk