Motor Vehicle Checkpoints and Correctional Facilities

Motor Vehicle Checkpoints and Correctional Facilities

Students Name

Institution Affiliation

Course Number and Name

Instructor Name

Due Date

Motor Vehicle Checkpoints and Correctional Facilities

Motor Vehicle Checkpoints Importance

The safety of the people is always the priority of the Judiciary in a country. Having a car that is not up to standard as per the roads laws or driving in a questioning condition are some of the ways that are against the laws and a risk to life. The U.S Supreme Court has come up with a decision to establish check points to stop all cars and check other offences. The decision is suitable as it helps in enforcing some necessary laws for drivers without considering the person (Morrison, et al, 2019). The checkpoints will have several importances if established and used for the right purpose.

At the checkpoint certain things can be carried out to ensure the people on the road are safe from which include; speed management of the vehicle as per the speed governance rule, remote observation which is proper number of passengers, good interior and cargo area of the vehicle, vehicle removal if its seen unfit for the road, easy communication and control among the traffic police during a car tracking and human search to ensure illegal goods are not smuggled. All this aim at ensuring the safety of the people and can only be achieved on the checkpoint if all cars are stopped for inspection with no exception.

Evolution of the Courts Approach to the Rights of Prisoners

The correction of the prisoners’ rights was initiated by a Muslim inmate by the name Holts who had made a request to grow a half inch beard for religious purposes but was denied by the department of correction, as only quarter inch beard is allowed, which is against the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), a body that provides protection for the religious liberty of prisoners. Holt filled a pro se complain in the Eastern District of Arkansas claiming violation of RLUIPA. At first the plies were ignored and given negative verdicts but on the eighth circuit Holts verdict was given a positive verdict and lead to changes in some laws

Holts was given permission to grow the half-inch beards as is was seen impossible for them to hold counter bands as claimed (Kleinlein, 2019). The court also agreed with quick and reliable identification of prisoners as a compelling interest and the change in prisoner’s beards would not cause misidentification. The prisoners were also allowed to grow the half-inch beard as no difference was seen between the quarter and half looking at the reasons given on quarter-inch beard. It was concluded by the court that RLUIPA does not intend to violet prison security but should but consideration in inmates religious interest

ReferencesKleinlein, T. (2019). The procedural approach of the european court of human rights: between subsidiarity and dynamic evolution. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 68(1), 91-110.

Morrison, C. N., Ferris, J., Wiebe, D. J., Peek-Asa, C., & Branas, C. C. (2019). Sobriety checkpoints and alcohol-involved motor vehicle crashes at different temporal scales. American journal of preventive medicine, 56(6), 795-802.