Achman Case Study

I, Supreme Court Justice, Floyd McLeod, find in favor of Mohammed Achman. This case has proved to me that Mr. Achman 's rights as an U.S. citizen were violated multiple times. To go more in depth; on September 27, 2001, approximately two weeks after the terrorist attack of the World Trade Center, America, especially New York ,were on edge in finding any little details to get to the bottom of the attack and any future attacks. Unfortunately, the Achman 's felt the wrath and discrimination from American civilians. It all started with people breaking one of his windows to his store and destroying his mosque in queens. First of all, people were lashing out because it was ran by Muslims and people correlate Muslim 's as terrorist. More importantly, …show more content…
He had this lead because the FBI informed him that he previously attended a airline flight school in Daytona Beach, Florida in which the school was an associate of several suspected Arab terrorists. Judge Kristin Kaykos, put on the search warrant that they were allowed to check Mohammed 's store and home in hopes of finding his brother to arrest him and charge himwith conspiracy. When they searched the store, police officers did not find his brother so they proceeded to Mohammed 's household. During the search, the police officers were looking high and low. They even looked through drawers. When they couldn’t find anything, the looked in the kitchen drawer and found a 22-Caliber pistol with ammunition. Puzzled, the officers questioned him, put the pistol in a evidence bag and proceeded to arrest Mohammed. They arrested him because it was an illegal hand gun. My question is, why did the police officers arrest him for something that wasn 't included in the search warrant? It wasn 't in Plainview. If it was in Plainview, then it would be admissible in court as evidence but it wasn 't. This reminds me of Horton V. …show more content…
During the search, police found things like a Uzi machine gun, a .38 caliber revolver, two stun guns, and a handcuff key, but did not find the supposedly stolen stuff. Police Officers did confiscate the weapons while in search for the stolen items and used it in court. So therefore his fourth amendment was violated. The 4th amendment states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." This action performed by the police officers reminds me of the supreme court case, Mapp V. Ohio. Mapp V. Ohio was about how a lady named, Dollree Mapp was convicted for having obscene materials after a admittedly illegal police search of her home for a fugitive. She argued that it was constitutional and the first amendment gave her the right to possess that. Freedom of expression shouldn’t be have a price to pay. Mapp did win her case and with her case came the exclusionary