The case under study in this article is the case between plaintiff Ahmed and the Ohio State Highway Patrol as the defendants to the lawsuit. The fact was pegged on four main counts touching on the laws of the US federal government. First, there is the count on the equal protection based on the 14th Amendment. There is also the issue touching on the 4th Amendment on the case with unreasonable search and seizure. The third count touched on the general civil rights violations, and finally, there is the right to travel as the fourth and final count on the case. Based on the arguments and the premises that the defendants have given in support of the plaintiff, it would be significant to the federal law requires that the plaintiff must present viable claim through the defendants for some form of relief to be granted on the case (Nourse, 2019). The defendant should not merely rely on the assertions by the plaintiff in a blanket manner as this would lead to gross misconduct in the due process of law followed by the court system.
This part is the first count to be used against the defendants. However, the clause only applies to defendants in other areas with those in Ohio given an exception. Based on this case, the plaintiff is expected to re-allege all the paragraphs that are deemed relevant in the same count for equal protection for all citizens in the US. The defendants violated this rule by engaging in a discriminatory racial act and connected while controlling the traffic while undertaking the intentional racial segregation while under the duty to control the traffic flow in the major highways in the state of Ohio (Niesen, 2019). By acting in such an unlawful manner, they have caused the plaintiff to be deprived of his fundamental rights to their liberty. They also made the plaintiff undergo some form of illegal seizures and searches based on his skin color, origin, and ethnicity. The defendants thus violated the right accorded to the plaintiff according to the 14th Amendment (42 USC of 1983). From an ardent law officer, the defendants’ acts were intentional and violated the constitutional and legal rights of the plaintiff to a wide berth of events. The same issues have also caused the plaintiff to suffer instances of humiliation suffering, and mental torture that the defendants should compensate for to a broad degree.
Unreasonable Search and Seizure
Based on both the 4th and the 14th Amendments of the US constitution, the defendants acted in a racially discriminatory manner where they subjected the plaintiff to unwarranted search, detention, and unreasonable seizure based on his nationality and place of origin. The case lacks the reasonable suspicion of any criminal activity, and the probable cause is neither specific to warrant prosecution of the plaintiff in a court of law (Nourse, 2019). Such actions by the defendants violated the right accorded to the plaintiff based on the circumstances under which the plaintiff could be subjected to seizure and search under the 4th Amendment in the US constitution.
Civil Rights Violations
Based on their racial inclinations, the defendants discriminated against the plaintiff based on his skin color and nationality. The plaintiff under this law was deprived of the equal and full benefits enjoyed by other citizens in the country. The discrimination was based on the fact that the plaintiff was an African American who needed to get his benefits just in a similar manner to the other whites in the US (Niesen, 2019). The plaintiff was further subjected to unnecessary punishments under the law that nearly brought him down to his knees in a wide variety of events. Such actions were against the requirement under section 42 USC of 1981. Such measures have led to the plaintiff to suffer much pain as a result of racial segregation by the defendants in the case.
Right to Travel
The right to travel is contained in the commercial clause of Article IV within the 14th Amendment of the US federal constitution. The defendants while acting in a discriminatory manner has subjected the plaintiff to deterred movement in the interstate travel and other issues of migration based on his ethnicity. The violations affected the rights of the plaintiff based on the privileges and immunities clause and the commerce clause that hindered his freedom on both the legal and constitutional rights while undertaking his duties in the country (Lindsay, 2019). These violations have caused a lot of pain to the life and mentality of the plaintiff in the country.
In summary, the defendants, in this case, did not present factual allegations against the accused in the whole matter of events. The plaintiff has only based his arguments and facts on the assertion that the commission must have conspired with other defendants to infringe into his civil rights as an individual. The evidence is thus insufficient to be used in handling the case and therefore no clear basis to help bring the commission to book. Furthermore, the commission is not considered as a subject or an individual who is liable for prosecution in the courts of law. With this in mind, it is therefore essential to note that the defendant has no legal basis to interfere with the legal immunity that the commission enjoys in the current legal systems. The defendants did not collect enough evidence in the right time to help defend the plaintiff in the case therein. Based on all these factors, the basis of argument by the defendants cannot be used in a court of law.
Lindsay, B. (2019). Relegated No Longer? The Role of Malice in the Delictual Protection of Liberty: Whitehouse v Gormley.
Niesen, P. (2019). Reframing civil disobedience: Constituent power as a language of transnational protest. Journal of International Political Theory, 1755088218808001.
Nourse, V. (2019). Violence against women and liberal sexism. In Research Handbook on Feminist Jurisprudence. Edward Elgar Publishing.