LAW: Tools To Keep America's Roads Safe/ Or Tools Of The New Prohibition

In my sometimes relentless efforts I began to wonder why the legal community could allow such devices to be used,especially as evidence,and to my surprise learned of the politcal pressures implied on states.The pressure is the result of activist groups such as MADD, and NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) who have created a new term to doctor actual statistics and make the devices and lower legal limits seem legitimate.The term "alcohol related fatality" is commonly misinterpeted as an actual drunk driving fatality.For example:Two sober drivers crash,one car has an intoxicated passenger,both drivers are killed,two "alcohol related" fatalities.A sober driver hits and kills an intoxicated pedestrian,"alcohol related" fatality.If both deceased,two alcohol related deaths, yet the drivers in these accidents had not been drinking.Although these are just examples,NHTSA admits to this and calls it ART:
http://www.ridl.us/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=532 Here are the 2002 facts with numbers from the NHTSA FARS database: Of the* 57,803 drivers involved in errors that became part of a fatal accident -
46,322 drivers were alcohol free: 80.1%.
1225 drivers had BACs of .01-.07: 2.1%.
6831 drivers at or over BAC of .08: 11.8%
The numbers do not add up to 100% because drug impaired drivers are not included.
The over .o8 group may appear to be the problem group but further research shows that
5146 drivers with BAC over .14: 8.9%
Actually:
488 drivers with a BAC of .08 to .09: .8% less than 1%
544 drivers with a BAC of .10 to .11: .9% less than 1% and
643 drivers with a BAC of .12 to .13: 1.1%

*NOTE-drivers involved in errors that became part of a fatal accident = the driver may have survived,was the BAC determined with breath test machines?There is also a note on the NHTSA FARS website:Note: NHTSA estimates alcohol involvement when alcohol test results are unknown.
There are more drivers involved in fatal accidents in the .01-.07 group than there are in the .08-.11 group but little twists in the numbers,and terms like "alcohol related" are obfuscations they use in an attempt to justify unconstitutional practices,lowering legal limits,and using these non-specific devices to determine ones BAC and convicting on it.
Fact is you are more likely to be involved in a drug related fatal accident than one with a driver who's BAC is between .01 and .13.One of MADD's most unlikely critics, is its founder, Candace Lightner. She says MADD has turned into a "neo-prohibitionist" organization that has lost its focus on safety. "I thought the emphasis on .08 laws was not where the emphasis should have been placed," she said. "The majority of crashes occur with high blood-alcohol levels, the .15, .18 and .25 drinkers. Lowering the blood-alcohol concentration was not a solution to the alcohol problem." In fact,the statistics prove Candace Lightner right.The following report is an example of the political pressure states endure due to this so-called ART,and may help answer the question,"How can the legal community allow such devices to be used,especially as evidence,and convict on them solely despite their potential rate of error?
Highway safety regulators in 1998 called on states to lower the allowable blood- alcohol level for drivers to 0.08%, or risk losing millions of dollars in federal highway grants. The majority of the states have con-formed, but 17 states— from Minnesota to South Carolina and Nevada to Delaware— have rejected the approach and maintain laws that define drunk driving at 0.10% blood- alcohol. Though no one defends drunk drivers or suggests abandoning the campaign against them, the states say feder-al officials have not shown that 0.08% laws save lives. Critics say the tougher laws weaken the emphasis on catching hard- core drunks who cause the most deadly crashes and saddle states with the costs of prosecuting tens of thou-sands of additional violators. "I don'think there would be one person saved by a .08 law," said Tom Rukavina, a Minnesota legislator representing the state's Iron Range, a sparsely populated region west of Lake Superior. "All we would have is more arrests. Almost every court case up here already involves drunk driving." Rukavina estimates that a 0.08% law would result in 6,000 additional criminal arrests costing the state about $60 million, outweighing the potential loss of federal highway funding. Nevada legislators have voted down 0.08% laws repeatedly for similar reasons, said Bernie Anderson, chairman of the state Assembly Judiciary Committee.The federal-state standoff reflects broader controversies about the nation's campaign against drunk driving. Some safety experts express frustration that the campaign against drunk driving has become such a politically powerful force that many safety issues involving roads, car standards and driver behavior are left in the shadows. They say the dimensions of the drunk driving problem also may be misrepresented by complex government statistics. Federal officials reject the criticism, asserting that 0.08% laws save lives and that the statistics showing that 40% of highway deaths involve alcohol do not exaggerate the problem.
Here are some stats for the Federal officials,
"Alcohol-related occupant fatalities [in 2002]—up a total of 3%, and it’s all coming
out of the high-BAC data source. In fact, it’s high BAC despite the reduction of
low BACs."3
Dr. Jeffrey Michael, Director of Impaired Driving & Occupant Protection Division
of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)

"The average driver involved in a fatal crash is at .16, about double the legal limit."14
Dr. Jeffrey Michael, NHTSA

"A 1999 report by Congress’ General Accounting Office found no definitive evidence
that the 0.08 standard, by itself, cuts down on alcohol-related crashes."17
The Chicago Tribune, January 2003

"None of the fatal accident series produced any evidence of a decrease associated
with the 0.08% legislation."19
California Department of Motor Vehicles

The "conclusion that 500 to 600 fewer fatal crashes would occur annually if all
states had .08 BAC laws is unfounded."21
United States General Accounting Office

"In 90 per cent of cases the people involved in drinking and driving fatalities are
two or three times over the current legal limit. And lowering the legal BAC limit a
few points is certainly not going to change the behaviour of chronic offenders—the
one per cent of drivers who tend to be alcoholics and responsible for a disproportionate
number of road crashes, injuries and deaths. All this will do is
criminalize social drinkers."24
Emile Therien, president of the Canadian Safety Council

In light of recent research,I have found these examples of how the influence of MADD is more prohibition than a legitimate expressed concern for public safety: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A24635-2003Jan7¬Found=true

http://www.theagitator.com/archives/025677.php#025677

Not to mention the people arrested in an inoperable vehicle,on horse back and one case a woman in her wheel chair.These can be found at the unconstitution link where I found a story of a man charged with DUI on a riding mower,I am no genius,but I'd bet the chances of being struck by lightning are greater than being involved in an "ALCOHOL RELATED" fatal accident with a lawn mower.

HOME

SCRAM: Independant Study Results

As we already know placing products such as plastic wrap, tape, paper, aluminum foil, or playing cards between the SCRAM Bracelet and the skin will trigger, record, and send a tamper alarm to SCRAMNET. If alcohol or a tamper is detected, the system automatically begins sampling every 30 minutes and the bracelet will also immediately begin sending a signal to the modem in order to facilitate transmission of the alerts and data as soon as the subject is within range.The question that's still unanswered is just how sensitive is this aspect of the device?
I was convicted of a "confirmed obstruction" charge that was impossible for me to defend.I have scars and abrasions from trying to avoid obstructions,I am wondering what this may have been,dead skin from the abrasions,string from a frayed towel or sock or a significant piece of lint?I may have been able to defend the allegations if I were notified earlier,metabolites last 4 days. In one report a probation office attempted to "tamper" with it and the publishing quotes"Penn Services’ manager of human services, Kristin Kurtz, strapped a SCRAM to her ankle for a 24-hour test run recently. Her mission was to attempt to tamper with the device.The company’s computers detected everything."It’s a nuclear arms race," Kurtz said, "One side does something, the other side does something to counter it.""A comment at this site states"First and foremost the device is very uncomfortable. They must be put on very tight and cannot be moved around without generating a violation alert."If you have ever been subjected to a cast you would probably remember the constant itching and rashes one can generate.Again "It cannot be moved,the companies computer detected everything,it's like a nuclear arms race!!!"
There is still the health issue as well.In the same comment the wearer quotes" In addition the wearer cannot use any products that contain alcohol. This includes soap, disinfectants and other medicinal products that use alcohol to treat common internal or epidermal infections. I have not been able to find any research as yet to the affects of this on the body. The devices are not monitored for cleanliness. While my "sentence was being imposed" on me the agency personnel laughed and joked about using a device they had just taken off another defendant. I do not have the medical history of that person. How many diseases are transmitted via bodily fluids. I cringe at the thought I may have just received an HIV life sentence. Medical conditions are also not taken into account when the device is sentenced. I have arthritis in both knees and now I am prohibited from using common topical treatments to relieve the pain. My ankles often swell and the device gets unbearable."I posted pictures of the abrasions in a previous post and have found that there are transcommunicable infections and diseases that would easily tranfer in this manner.Don't forget,you can't clean or treat your wounds or you will set off a "nuclear arms race" by tampering or obstructing!


A two-week trial of the bracelet, which is operated by its maker, BioInformation Systems LLC, in April raised questions about its effectiveness.The device was worn by five defendants who were awaiting trial and by the consulting firm's manager.The consumption of two margaritas and four beers over a six-hour period by the manager, Jerry Solem, who is 6 feet tall and weighs 225 pounds, did not register as confirmed alcohol consumption.One defendant's bracelet malfunctioned immediately, failed to work throughout the two weeks and was not replaced.Solem said in an interview that he was confident BioInformation Systems would be able to iron out the kinks."BioInformation Systems said it would have replaced equipment quicker," Solem said. "They said if this wasn't a pilot, it would have been handled differently."RACINE COUNTY MILWAKEE JUNE 2004
http://www.dailylocal.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=12206325&BRD=1671&PAG=461&dept_id=17782&rfi=6

http://www.jsonline.com/news/racine/jun04/238524.asp?format=print

HOME

SCRAM: WHAT THEY ARE SAYING/WHAT ARE THEY SAYING

One article written by AMS as a counter from a lawyer's publishing referred to in the TESTING quotes"In the intoxicated alcohol subjects, the TAS curve was of similar amplitude and shape to the BAC curve, but lagged up to 120 min behind the BAC curve."Just a few sentences after they quote"The relative peaks of the two curves are separated by approximately an hour, and the time to achieve zero is delayed, as well."A third estimate on the page quotes"As you can see in the following graphic, if comparing a breathalyzer and transdermal test results from SCRAM for a single event side-by-side, the curve on the transdermal analysis will show a delay of between 30 and 180 minutes."Then AMS promotes it by saying,"Reports will show the exact time of day users start drinking, their blood alcohol level if they do drink, and when their body has expelled all alcohol."Up to 120 minutes,approximately one hour and between 30 and 180 minutes!

The ankle system weighs a little more than a pound, said Jon Ugval, director of operations for Eastpointe-based House Arrest Services, a private electronic monitoring provider that uses SCRAM when working with alcohol offenders....A little more than a pound pulling on your skin with every step,abrasions are almost inevitable if the bracelet is snug on a wearers ankle.Six months of this and infections and permanent scars are another result.Loose bracelets are more vulnerable to outside influences!
Jim Miller, market development manager for House Arrest Services, said the device is so sensitive it can detect if somebody tries to take it off, submerge it in water or places a shield between the skin and the sensor...................so sensitive that dead skin from the abrasions,string from a frayed towel, piece of lint or a sock would be detected??
"A lot of them will try to defeat it, sometimes by putting something under it to block the sensor or something like that," said Jon Ugval, a manager of operations at House Arrest and son of its founder, Carlo Ugval. "But if you slide something under it, even a sock on your ankle, it can detect that and notify us of that, too."........socks!!
Bay County Chief Circuit Judge Lawrence M. Bielawski said he's already ordered four defendants to take part in the SCRAM monitoring program, although three of those defendants are first serving jail terms and the fourth was just ordered onto the program on Tuesday..............ordered,not an option.

Kathleen Brown,AMS says,"The feedback we get from judges is they are comfortable knowing that if these people are out in the community, they can monitor their alcohol," she said. "It's the drinking that's causing problems, whether it's driving while drinking, abusing someone or not working to pay child support."Car ignition interlock devices - which are currently being used in the county and require drivers to blow into a tube to test their breath for alcohol before the car will start - can't prevent people from drinking when they're out of the car or driving someone else's car, Brown said..................If drinking is the crime why not prosecute the TRAFFICERS,is this going to cure alcoholism?
"It's still not solving the core drinking problem that sends them back to court again and again," Brown said...............................An alcoholic is one for life,this system should keep one sober for the time,but they can't watch forever,turning your will and your life over to the care of AMS is not the third step.The financial stress retards progress not to mention the possible regression attributed to the cost and stress of litigations from false positives, they inform the defendant of 4 to 5 days later making it impossible for a confirmatory test!!

Roughly 60 percent of bracelet wearers stay alcohol-free while wearing the ankle bracelet; the remaining 40 percent drink or try to tamper with them, Brown said..........without instigation (assaults,misconduct)who commits crime while they know police are watching,a percentage of the 40% could have been false positives from a "device is so sensitive it can detect if somebody tries to take it off,even a sock on your ankle.I recently checked some other stats=Penn Services has used MEMS 2000 for 3 1/2 years to monitor 50 people in Kansas, where the firm runs probation departments for several municipalities,the systems have been successful; of the 750 people monitored with the SCRAM and MEMS systems, only six have violated probation. 6/750=.008 less than 1%,using SCRAM as a monitor could very well lower recidivism. With the help of judges and attorneys, guidelines for SCRAM use were drawn up. In Milwaukee County, it's used for people charged with certain combinations of repeat drunken driving offenses.Don Miles, who administers offender compliance for Wisconsin Community Services and his agency's executive director, Stephen Swigart, said the system appears to be working. The random breath tests, ordered for about 240 people per year, catch about two people per week, but Swigart said that in Milwaukee County no one has registered an alcohol violation while wearing a SCRAM bracelet.
"There's no cheating this thing," said Lou Sugo, AMS marketing director. "This thing is spot-on accurate."......................possibly too accurate to be used as sole evidence for it,"can pick up alcohol found in lotions or soaps." says Janeanne Tourtellott, DWI court administrator and,"But if you slide something under it, even a sock on your ankle, it can detect that and notify us of that, too."said Jon Ugval, a manager of operations at House Arrest .


The monitor is used as sole evidence for conviction,
For counties interested in trying SCRAM, Ptacek recommends that all judges meet with a representative of the company who can demonstrate the device and answer questions. Zimmerman’s best advice is to conduct a pilot project first to understand the system’s strengths and limitations in practice. "This should just be a monitoring tool," she said, "not the only monitoring tool."
http://www.courts.state.wi.us/news/thirdbranch/current/scram.htm

References:
http://www.prisontalk.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-52422.html
http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/local/12265307.htm
http://www.bizjournals.com/philadelphia/stories/2004/11/29/focus2.html?page=1
http://www.bradenton.com/mld/charlotte/news/12280974.htm

HOME