SCRAM: TESTING?
Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitor system is a relatively new and very effective alcohol monitor.SCRAM is used in nearly 30 states and is taking over the traditional methods of testing such as preliminary breathylizer tests (PBT)or urinalysis,but does not read blood alcohol content (BAC).Instead,the SCRAM bracelet (worn around the ankle),supposedly reads from vapors emitted through the skin.Unfortunately,it can detect everything from deodorant and hair spray to household cleaners.These are all items on what is called the banned items list,however,there are many products that contain alcohol that do not list it in an ingredients list.Windex is a perfect example,everyone knows about ammonia, but it is also 2% butoxyethanol and 3% isopropyl alcohol!In some cases they can tell by the printed read if alcohol is from an outside source by what I believe they called "spikes".This is when the level of alcohol jumps to a really high level and falls faster than the human body can actually metabolize it(There is also a charge for this called "tampering").In my case,I believe the diffusion was retarded by being trapped between the bracelet and skin,but fifteen hours of witnesses saved me from a confirmed alcohol consumption.The reading,according to testimony of the represenative of House Arrest Services and Alcohol Monitoring Systems, was indicative to that of consumption,but in fact was a fuel spill of some significance.If this happened on my day off,my only witness would have been Jozlynn,my 2 year old daughter.A definite conviction from an indefinite device.The consequences are not major so the subject does not draw much attention.The repercussions on the other hand can be loss of jobs,homes,credit,custodial rights just to name a few.
My first two tethers were loosely fitted on my leg leaving the bracelet vulnerable and causing extreme discomfort ,abrasions and ultimately infections .These images are two different examples of early stage abrasions. The tether fell down my leg constantly,every time I climbed stairs,stepped down from a curb,walked any significant distance or perspired.If the tether is loose it is vulnerable to outside influences and there is a permanent scar on my left leg the size of a nickel from trying to avoid obstructions.SCRAM bracelets are armed with a system that detects interference and it sends out
an alert.Again,these obstructions can be caused by socks, sheets, pant legs or a thin blanket and can happen when the probationer is unaware or even sleeping.
Apparently,from the testimony of a SCRAM system operator,it doesn't qualify as an obstruction unless it occurs for 6 hours in at which time alcohol could still be detected.I myself had an obstruction for 12 hours,even though there was no alcohol consumption detected,witnessed,or purchased,I was convicted.There is no way to prove a probationary was not being delinquent,but with a police disbatch or as in my case,they could have called,warned me of the problem,had me remove what ever was obstructing,wake up the bracelet and give an updated download.These alternatives would be so much more constructive in ones recovery,rather than wait 5 days hit them with a court date and leave them prove otherwise.I have yet to find any scrutinous research done on this aspect of the device,but with a proper procedure,it shouldn't need one.You may ask,how can the courts charge a probate with consumption of alcohol without an actual BAC/BrAC,or alcohol even being detected by their monitor.Truth is,Rule 702 has been a controversial issue for sometime now.Scientific evidence does not need to be tested by an independant 3rd party,but instead the trial judge acts as a "gatekeeper" and he/she is the one to determine the reliability of the evidence.In my case,the Judge gave a fair trial and played the role as well as humanly possible,but one thing that concerns me is,what is the known or potential rate of error.According their research thus far,SCRAM is infallible!My "confirmed alcohol consumption" was not the first to be dismissed in Michigan.As a result of the previous post the attorney published an article challenging the testing of SCRAM http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/0/dd005fb4046cee9185257019006b2690?OpenDocument In the report he claimed there was only one published research specifically on the SCRAM system and it was paid for by AMS.Of course AMS countered with their own publishing, http://www.alcoholmonitoring.com/pressroom/counterpoint.html that shows there was independant study on the subject,but doesn't include an independant study on SCRAM.Again,the obstruction device is not the subject of scrutiny.The more they use the device the more false positives it will read and soon,not soon enough,the worlds first infallible device will be under the scrutiny of the scientific as well as the legal community.Then maybe Rule 702 can catch up to 21st century technology.
According to a thread running on a local list serve, a Google search shows that the Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitor (SCRAM) is a propriety system of a privately held company, Alcohol Monitoring Systems Inc. That seems intent on marketing their wonderful new product. They cite one "white paper" The Determination of Blood Alcohol Concentration by Transdermal Measurement A White Paper by J. Robert Zettl, BS, MPA, DABFE Commissioned by Alcohol Monitoring Systems, Inc. as verification of their technology and results. But if you actually read the "white paper" there were only three test subject individuals, two women and a man, listed. When N=3, I’’m not sure the technology has achieved general acceptance in the scientific community. I could be wrong, but there might be a Daubert issue or two with the SCRAM. http://www.azduiatty.com/scram-devices.htm
HOME
My first two tethers were loosely fitted on my leg leaving the bracelet vulnerable and causing extreme discomfort ,abrasions and ultimately infections .These images are two different examples of early stage abrasions. The tether fell down my leg constantly,every time I climbed stairs,stepped down from a curb,walked any significant distance or perspired.If the tether is loose it is vulnerable to outside influences and there is a permanent scar on my left leg the size of a nickel from trying to avoid obstructions.SCRAM bracelets are armed with a system that detects interference and it sends out
an alert.Again,these obstructions can be caused by socks, sheets, pant legs or a thin blanket and can happen when the probationer is unaware or even sleeping.Apparently,from the testimony of a SCRAM system operator,it doesn't qualify as an obstruction unless it occurs for 6 hours in at which time alcohol could still be detected.I myself had an obstruction for 12 hours,even though there was no alcohol consumption detected,witnessed,or purchased,I was convicted.There is no way to prove a probationary was not being delinquent,but with a police disbatch or as in my case,they could have called,warned me of the problem,had me remove what ever was obstructing,wake up the bracelet and give an updated download.These alternatives would be so much more constructive in ones recovery,rather than wait 5 days hit them with a court date and leave them prove otherwise.I have yet to find any scrutinous research done on this aspect of the device,but with a proper procedure,it shouldn't need one.You may ask,how can the courts charge a probate with consumption of alcohol without an actual BAC/BrAC,or alcohol even being detected by their monitor.Truth is,Rule 702 has been a controversial issue for sometime now.Scientific evidence does not need to be tested by an independant 3rd party,but instead the trial judge acts as a "gatekeeper" and he/she is the one to determine the reliability of the evidence.In my case,the Judge gave a fair trial and played the role as well as humanly possible,but one thing that concerns me is,what is the known or potential rate of error.According their research thus far,SCRAM is infallible!My "confirmed alcohol consumption" was not the first to be dismissed in Michigan.As a result of the previous post the attorney published an article challenging the testing of SCRAM http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/0/dd005fb4046cee9185257019006b2690?OpenDocument In the report he claimed there was only one published research specifically on the SCRAM system and it was paid for by AMS.Of course AMS countered with their own publishing, http://www.alcoholmonitoring.com/pressroom/counterpoint.html that shows there was independant study on the subject,but doesn't include an independant study on SCRAM.Again,the obstruction device is not the subject of scrutiny.The more they use the device the more false positives it will read and soon,not soon enough,the worlds first infallible device will be under the scrutiny of the scientific as well as the legal community.Then maybe Rule 702 can catch up to 21st century technology.
According to a thread running on a local list serve, a Google search shows that the Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitor (SCRAM) is a propriety system of a privately held company, Alcohol Monitoring Systems Inc. That seems intent on marketing their wonderful new product. They cite one "white paper" The Determination of Blood Alcohol Concentration by Transdermal Measurement A White Paper by J. Robert Zettl, BS, MPA, DABFE Commissioned by Alcohol Monitoring Systems, Inc. as verification of their technology and results. But if you actually read the "white paper" there were only three test subject individuals, two women and a man, listed. When N=3, I’’m not sure the technology has achieved general acceptance in the scientific community. I could be wrong, but there might be a Daubert issue or two with the SCRAM. http://www.azduiatty.com/scram-devices.htm
HOME
posted by marcellus91872 at 12:48 AM
97 comments
