Question
PLEASE WRITE A SUMMARY FOR EACH OF MY CASE AND BEGING WITH A SUMMARY. YOU WILL BEGING WITH A SUMMARY FIRST AND THEN YOU WILL
PLEASE WRITE A SUMMARY FOR EACH OF MY CASE AND BEGING WITH A SUMMARY. YOU WILL BEGING WITH A SUMMARY FIRST AND THEN YOU WILL WRITE A SUMMARY FOR EACH OF MY CASES DOWN BELOW.
In the case of State of New York v. Achman, I, Judge Franny parra ortega, found in favor of the State of
New York.The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.
However, the Supreme Court has established several exceptions to the warrant requirement, including the
presence of exigent circumstances and searches incident to a lawful arrest.ln this case, Detective Regan
obtained a valid search warrant from Judge Kristin Kaykos to search the store and home of Mohammed
Achman for his brother Abdul, who was suspected of being associated with terrorist activities. The search
was conducted pursuant to this warrant, which was issued by a neutral and detached judge, satisfying the
requirements set forth in Coolidge v. New Hampshire (1971).
During the lawful search of Mohammed's home, the officers discovered a handgun and ammunition in a
kitchen drawer. This discovery was made in plain view, an exception to the warrant requirement established
in cases such as Horton v. California (1990). The incriminating nature of the firearm was immediately
apparent, and the officers had lawful access to the drawer while conducting their authorized search.
Furthermore, the seizure of the handgun and ammunition can be justified as a search incident to a lawful
arrest under the precedent of United States v. Robinson (1973). Once the officers discovered the illegal f
firearm, they had probable cause to arrest Mohammed Achman for its possession. Consequently, they were
permitted to seize the weapon and ammunition as part of the search incident to that arrest.
While Mohammed Achman's lawyer argued that the search and seizure violated the Fourth Amendment's
protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, the established exceptions for exigent circumstances,
plain view, and searches incident to arrest justify the actions of the officers in this case.The Fifth Amendment
protects against self-incrimination and requires due process of law. In this case, Mohammed Achman was not
compelled to provide any self-incriminating testimony against himself. The handgun and other evidence were
obtained through the valid search, not through coerced statements from Achman.The Sixth Amendment
guarantees the right to counsel for criminal prosecutions. Here, Mohammed Achman was afforded his Sixth
Amendment rights, as the court appointed a lawyer to represent him free of charge when he could not afford
one. This ensured he had legal representation at trial.The Eighth Amendment prohibits excessive bail and
cruel and unusual punishments. While Mohammed's $1 million bail amount was high for an illegal handgun
possession charge, it can be viewed as reasonable given the context of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and suspicions
about Mohammed's brother's potential ties to terrorism. The 2-year maximum sentence he received also does
not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under Supreme Court precedents.
Finally, the Fourteenth Amendment requires due process and equal protection under the law. Mohammed
wasafforded due process through his arrest pursuant to a valid warrant, his right to legal counsel, and his fair
trial.There is no evidence he was denied equal protection based on his religion or ethnicity. While disturbing,
thevandalism of his store and mosque appear to be the actions of private individuals, not state discrimination.
Invoking the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, I rule that Mohammed Achman's
constitutional rights were not violated, and that the search, arrest, trial and sentencing were legally valid
under established Supreme Court precedent. The State of New York is therefore entitled to have the
conviction upheld on appeal. The context of investigating terrorism after 9/11 provides further justification
for the procedures used in this case. Considering the precedents set by Coolidge v. New Hampshire Horton v.
California and United States v. Robinson as well as the valid search warrant obtained by Detective Regan, I
find that the search and seizure were reasonable and did not violate Mohammed Achman's Fourth
Amendment rights. Therefore, I rule in favor of the State of New York in this case.
Step by Step Solution
There are 3 Steps involved in it
Step: 1
Get Instant Access to Expert-Tailored Solutions
See step-by-step solutions with expert insights and AI powered tools for academic success
Step: 2
Step: 3
Ace Your Homework with AI
Get the answers you need in no time with our AI-driven, step-by-step assistance
Get Started