Legal opinion

In the instant national, defendant Panah was convicted in the psychometric test accost of murder and he was sentenced to demise. His shift is now before us on appeal be per coordinate of the rule on machine-driven appeal in case of verdicts of death penalty.In this case, an eight-year-old girl named Nicole Parker was visiting his father, Edward Parker in timberland Hills. At 1100 in the dawning of the give tongue to date, Nicole asked her father for a softb each and glove and went go forthside the flatcar interwoven of his father to play. Forty-five minutes after, Edward enumerateed for Nicole b atomic number 18ly she is nowhere to be found. Thus, Edward looked for his daughter in spite of appearance the flat tire interwoven to no avail.Edward Parkers failure to find Nicole prompted him to call the law. suspect Panah, the resident of flatcar 122, talked to Edward and found out that the last mentioned was looking for his wanting(p) daughter. When the law arriv ed, the defendant insisted that Edward come with him to Ventura Boulevard to look for Nicole, but Edward refused.Thereafter, one of the law of nature was inform that Nicole was last seen talking to a valet de chambre in his 20s who was living in apartment 122. Thus, the said jurisprudence human being asked for the key to the said room from the manager and calculateed the apartment complex for Nicole but did non find her. Hours later, the detectives were apprised that the defendant attempted to commit suicide and told a friend that he did something real bad that is in connection with the missing child. This friend told the police, which new information prompted the latter to film another mugless search of apartment 122, wherein they found Nicoles cold personify wrapped in a eff sheet and stuffed inside a suitcase.The defendant was charged with murder, and he raised issues as to the illegality of the secondless searches in his pre-trial motions. However, the trial judge control that the warrantless searches were valid, and the defendant was convicted.In this appeal, the defendant again raises the very(prenominal) issues, arguing that the warrantless search conducted in his apartment unit was a violation of his honor opens below the fourthly Amendment, and that thither were no rank mise en scenes warranting a warrantless search.OpinionUnder this jurisdiction, we preserve the ripe(p) of citizens to be secure in their inglesides and cause. This security is embodied in the Fourth Amendment to our Constitution and is guaranteed by the rule that searches should be conceivable and supported by a warrant based on a finding of likely cause.The Fourth Amendment statesThe right of the population 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 on probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.Thus, it is clear that as a commonplace rule, a search warrant must be secured by police officers before barging in another mans home and searching it for effects. However, this general rule admits of certain exceptions.PrecedentThe case of McDonald v. get together States, decided in 1948 (355 U.S. 451, 93 L. Ed 15), explained that arrest situations that serve as get reasons may rationalize the absence of a search warrant.While this case decided in favor of the defendant and emphasized his right to be secure in his house and effects, it provides authority for the other position, that is, that given reasonable justification, the requirement of a search warrant may be dispensed with. However, mete out must be taken so that it is certain that exigent circumstances do exist to justify a warrantless search. later all, it is a fundamental right of all persons to be secure in their houses and effects, and fruitless suspicions and t he lack of adequate justification should not be an exception to Fourth Amendment rights.In Kirk v. Louisiana (536 U.S. 635), promulgated in 2002, the imperative Court again ruled that the polices conduct of warrantless search was illegal, because they did not find exigent circumstances to justify the absence of a warrant. It should be remark that the court only struck shore the validity of the search because there was no exigent circumstances to justify the warrantless search.Nexus.These cases are authority to serve as the diminutive opposite of the case at bar. here(predicate) there is clearly an exigent and emergency situation. A child had gone missing, and the police did not know whether the girl was dead or alive. Time was of the essence, and the police had to ask an immediate decision as to whether to conduct a search, if they were to save the life of the girl. Thus, in this situation, there is clearly an exigent circumstance justifying a warrantless search, because the l ife of a spring chicken girl is on the line. Moreover, probable cause exists, since even prior to the statement of the defendants friend regarding his confession, the police were able to gather information from other people that the victim was last seen talking to the defendant.Thus, since there was probable cause and exigent circumstances, this case clearly falls within the acknowledge exceptions to the Fourth Amendment, and the right of the defendant to be secure in his house and effects was not violated.Hence, the evidence derived from such warrantless search is admissible in evidence against him, and could form the basis of his conviction. The decision of the lower court is thus, affirmed.