Monday, March 4, 2019

Legal opinion

In the instant typesetters case, suspect Panah was convicted in the trial court of murder and he was sentenced to death. His case is now in advance us on magical spell be brace of the conventionality on automatic appeal in case of verdicts of death penalty.In this case, an eight-year-old young lady named Nicole Parker was visiting his father, Edward Parker in timbre Hills. At 1100 in the morning of the verbalize date, Nicole asked her father for a softball and glove and went outside the flat tire complex of his father to play. xlv minutes after, Edward looked for Nicole but she is nowhere to be found. Thus, Edward looked for his daughter within the flat tire complex to no avail.Edward Parkers failure to ascertain Nicole prompted him to call the police. suspect Panah, the resident of flat tire 122, talked to Edward and found out that the latter was looking for his lacking(p) daughter. When the police arrived, the defendant insisted that Edward come with him to Ventura Bo ulevard to look for Nicole, but Edward refused.Thereafter, angiotensin-converting enzyme of the police 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 key to the said room from the manager and huntinged the apartment complex for Nicole but did not find her. Hours later, the detectives were informed that the defendant attempted to commit suicide and told a ace that he did something really bad that is in connection with the missing child. This patron told the police, which new information prompted the latter to stand an opposite authorizationless search of apartment 122, wherein they found Nicoles exsanguine body wrapped in a bed sheet and stuffed inside a suitcase.The defendant was charged with murder, and he raised issues as to the illegality of the warrantless searches in his pre-trial motions. However, the trial judge ruled that the warrantless searches were valid, and the defendant w as convicted.In this appeal, the defendant again raises the same issues, arguing that the warrantless search conducted in his apartment unit was a violation of his rights under the quartern Amendment, and that there were no exigent circumstances warranting a warrantless search.OpinionUnder this jurisdiction, we uphold the right of citizens to be secure in their houses and effectuate. This security is embodied in the one-fourth Amendment to our typography and is guaranteed by the rule that searches should be reasonable and support by a warrant based on a finding of probable cause.The Fourth Amendment statesThe right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against paradoxical 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 general rule, a search w arrant 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. United States, decided in 1948 (355 U.S. 451, 93 L. Ed 15), explained that emergency situations that serve as compelling reasons may absolve the absence seizure 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 ascendency for the other position, that is, that given reasonable justification, the requirement of a search warrant may be dispensed with. However, care must be interpreted so that it is certain that exigent circumstances do exist to beg off 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 rights.In Kirk v. Lou isiana (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 exigent circumstances to justify the absence of a warrant. It should be noted that the court only struck put through 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 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 make 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 life of a young girl is on the line. Moreover, probable cause exists, since even prior to the statement of the defendant s 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 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.

No comments:

Post a Comment