Legal opinion

In the instant episode, suspect Panah was convicted in the trial court of murder and he was sentenced to death. His faux pas is now before us on appeal because of the approach pattern on automatic appeal in case of verdicts of death penalty.In this case, an eight-year-old missy named Nicole Parker was visiting his father, Edward Parker in Woodland Hills. At 1100 in the morning of the said date, Nicole asked her father for a softball and glove and went outside the flatbed complex of his father to play. Forty-five proceeding after, Edward looked for Nicole but she is nowhere to be rig. Thus, Edward looked for his girlfriend at bottom the flatbed complex to no avail.Edward Parkers failure to scrape up Nicole prompted him to recall the jurisprudence. Defendant Panah, the resident of apartment 122, talked to Edward and found out that the latter was looking for his missing daughter. When the jurisprudence arrived, the defendant insisted that Edward come with him to Ventura bo ulevard to look for Nicole, but Edward refused.Thereafter, one of the police force was informed that Nicole was last seen talking to a man in his 20s who was living in apartment 122. Thus, the said policeman asked for the cite to the said room from the manager and pursuited the apartment complex for Nicole but did non find her. Hours later, the detectives were informed that the defendant attempted to vest suicide and told a friend that he did something really bad that is in conjunction with the missing child. This friend told the police, which new randomness prompted the latter to conduct some former(a) warrantless seek of apartment 122, wherein they found Nicoles deadened body wrapped in a bed sheet and stuffed inside a suitcase.The defendant was charged with murder, and he raise issues as to the illegality of the warrantless essayes in his pre-trial motions. However, the trial pass judgment control that the warrantless searches were valid, and the defendant was conv icted.In this appeal, the defendant again raises the same issues, arguing that the warrantless search conducted in his apartment unit was a misdemeanour of his beneficials under the quaternary Amendment, and that at that place were no clamorous component part warranting a warrantless search.Opinion downstairs this jurisdiction, we uphold the right of citizens to be adept in their offers and effects. This security is embodied in the one-quarter Amendment to our Constitution and is guaranteed by the rule that searches should be reasonable and supported by a warrant based on a finding of equiprobable cause.The Fourth Amendment statesThe right of the people to be reassure 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 bloke or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.Thus, it is cl ear that as a general rule, a search warrant must be secured by police officers before barging in another mans home and seek it for effects. However, this general rule admits of certain exceptions.PrecedentThe case of McDonald v. United States, resolute in 1948 (355 U.S. 451, 93 L. Ed 15), explained that emergency situations that serve as compelling reasons may give up the absence seizure of a search warrant.While this case decided in favor of the defendant and emphasize his right to be secure in his house and effects, it provides authority for the other position, that is, that inclined reasonable apology, the requirement of a search warrant may be dole out with. However, care must be taken so that it is certain that rank dowry do exist to justify a warrantless search. After all, it is a fundamental right of all persons to be secure in their houses and effects, and trivial suspicions and the lack of adequate justification should not be an exception to Fourth Amendment right s.In Kirk v. Louisiana (536 U.S. 635), promulgated in 2002, the Supreme Court again ruled that the polices conduct of warrantless search was illegal, because they did not find crying(a) circumstances to justify the absence of a warrant. It should be noted that the court only strike down 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 exact opposite of the case at bar. Here there is clearly an exigent and emergency situation. A child had asleep(p) missing, and the police did not know whether the girl was dead or alive. Time was of the essence, and the police had to make an immediate decision as to whether to conduct a search, if they were to save the manners of the girl. Thus, in this situation, there is clearly an exigent circumstance justifying a warrantless search, because the life of a young girl is on the line. Moreover, probable cause exists, since even prior to the reci tal 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 recognized exceptions to the Fourth Amendment, and the right of the defendant to be secure in his house and effects was not violated.Hence, the turn up derived from much(prenominal) warrantless search is admissible in evidence against him, and could form the basis of his conviction. The decision of the dismay court is thus, affirmed.