in the article “lockdown” the author michelle alexander tries to show to the readers how the criminal justice system has “few legal rules that meaningfully constrain the police in the war on drugs” and how “it has made the roundup of millions of americans for nonviolent drug offenses relatively easy”. she proves this to the reader by using the change in the fourth amendment and how “the supreme court has seized every opportunity to facilitate the drug war, primarily by eviscerating fourth amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures by the police”. she also states that “the police could not stop and search someone without a warrant unless there was probable cause to believe that the individual was engaged in criminal activity. that was basic fourth amendment principle.” but in Terry vs. Ohio, the supreme court modified their understanding, by ruling that if and when a police officer observes unusual conduct by someone the officer is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a limited search to discover weapons that might be used against the officer. known as the stop-and-frisk rule. this is an important part of her argument because now the reader can see that the police no longer have to have any reason to search someone. alexander argues this by using the case Florida vs. Bostick where a “Random” search occurred and lead to Terrance Bostick’s arrest. other courts argued that this is how we start racial and ethnic discrimination. so it’s no surprise when he percentage of drug arrests that result in prison sentences have quadrupled proving Alexander’s point. police with no constraint will lead to more racial and ethnic discrimination which will lead to more searches arrests.