Moore v texas provide a brief summary of the case provide an...

moore v texas, Provide a brief summary of the case. Provide an argument about whether you believe the ruling is correct or what it should be, if the case is still active. Ensure that your argument is supported by at least three credible resources. Provide references to case laws and facts to support your argument. Explain how you think the Supreme Court’s decision, or potential decision, may impact agencies (police or corrections) moving forward. Recommend at least 2–3 specific actions or steps that could be implemented by leadership to avoid future violations.

Transcript

00:02 And custody issues.

00:11 So in the case of denise v.

00:13 Oscar franklin smith, the issue of miranda rights and custody arises when smith was taken into custody by the police.

00:20 Miranda rights require law enforcement officer to inform individuals to the right to remain silent and their right to autonomy before any questioning.

00:29 The court must determine whether smith was in custody at the time of his interrogation and whether he was properly informed of his miranda rights.

00:37 If it is found that mr.

00:39 Smith was in custody and not properly informed of his rights, any statement he made during the interrogation may be deemed inadmissible as evidence.

00:49 Second is search warrant requirement issues.

01:03 This case may involve search warrant requirement issues if the police conducted a search of smith property without a valid search warrant.

01:10 The fourth amendment of the united states constitution protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures.

01:16 The court must determine whether the search conducted by police was supported by probable cause and whether a search warrant was obtained or if any exceptions to the search warrant requirement apply.

01:27 If the search was conducted without a search warrant or without the meeting requirements, any evidence obtained during the search may be excluded from trial.

01:36 Third is hearsay excited utterance issue.

01:50 Hearsay refers to an out of the court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted.

01:56 However, an exception to the hearsay rule exists for excited utterances which are statements made under the influence of startling event and without time for reflection.

02:07 The court may consider whether any statement made by witnesses at the end of the scene of crime qualify as excited utterances and therefore admissible as evidence.

02:17 Fourth is circumstantial evidence and courts statements.

02:35 This refers to indirect evidence that implies a fact or event.

02:39 In this case, the court may analyze the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution to determine its probative value and whether it's establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt...

Question

Please give Ace some feedback