You will be reading this assignment and in the beginning you will write a summary of the case before beginning. PLEASE BE SPECIFIC FROM WHERE YOU START WRITING SO I CAN JUST KEEP IN TRACK OF WHERE IM ADDING WHAT YOU ARE SENDING ME. THANKS.

WRITE a summary of the case before you began YOUR defense.

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.