LAW and SCRAM: Science and the court=?

http://www.chronicle.duke.edu/vnews/display.v/ART/2006/01/23/43d4d845f2ddf

"Indignant civil libertarians who disapprove of SCRAM bracelets—that’s a Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitor in the form of a less-than-fashionable ankle bracelet, for those not in the know—have perhaps greater reason for their disgust."
Whomever wrote this has an untainted perspective not normally seen in the media-
"We do not deny that the technology is impressive. There exists the potential for this product to be a positive externality for this community and others. We also understand that there is always turbulence when a new-fangled product is introduced. Just look back in time, when now-common polygraphs and house-arrest bracelets were seen as nefarious abuses of technology."
..."Both the bracelet distributors and the monitors of its use are, in North Carolina and in all 32 states that use SCRAM, denizens of a private company. As such, we understand the desire to promote an innovative, potentially lucrative product."
..."Yet there is not yet an established legal precedent for SCRAM use; thus, marketing them as necessary for light sentencing is false advertising. The "experts" that distribute the bracelets can in no way assure defendants of leniency. In some courtrooms, SCRAM use makes a difference. In others, it means nothing. As of right now, there is no jurisprudential consenus."
To follow up the story I found this from: http://www.chronicle.duke.edu/vnews/display.v/ART/2006/01/20/43d0d4b941273
"There are those who say the technology is the most reliable way to keep someone from drinking..." I could not agree more, that is the reason I advocate the use, while opposing the misuse by not informing a defendant with time to offer a toxicology test, if you are going to make a defendant prove their innocents, allow them for the purpose of justice.
"There are many in the judicial system, however, who question the use of a SCRAM as a pre-trial aid intended to win leniency from a judge or as a condition of probation.
Durham District Judge Marcia Morey said defendants who wore the bracelet to show their ability to stay sober after being arrested for a DWI would get "absolutely nothing" in her courtroom. Signing up to wear the bracelet—at an initial cost of $75 and $12 a day after that—is voluntary.
"I would shake my head and say, ‘I’m sorry you’ve wasted all your money,’" Morey said. "It’s not illegal to drink. It’s illegal to drink and drive. If you engage in a lawful activity and you’re not driving, we don’t have the right—we don’t have that authority to monitor you.... It’s like telling a shoplifter you cannot shop."
Craig Brown, another Durham district court judge,said "It was really a more general concern about the private vendors becoming perhaps a bit too aggressive."
Again, rule 702 (admitting scientific evidence) applies, a private company will be far more than zealous when protecting their multi-million dollar investment, do we really need for-profit companies selling the products in the justice system? What will they do to sell and/or protect it? I have yet to perjure myself but for $10,000,000, my childs life, my livelihood, and whatever else I could buy may persuade me to do so, why would they not? It's not just here, this is just another new precedent, PBT's in New Jersey, the people admit DNA! To date there has been a couple of false-positives, ironically DNA proved it, but if the prosecution says," There is a 99.90% chance that he did the crime..." the fact remains that this is one in one thousand, with thousands of people in the community there better be corroborating evidence or I'll be that one jurer, because I know!

I HAVE MORE YET:
The disparity between courtrooms exists in part because there is no state law delineating how SCRAM is to be used. But the Administrative Office of the Courts, the body that officiates the state’s judicial system, has warned judges about the technology.
"We have raised both what we think are legal and programmatic concerns to judges and say we think they should be aware of those concerns when and if they use the technology," said Greg Stahl, senior deputy director of the AOC.
Stahl also called into question the veracity of the science behind the bracelets, saying that the only testing he had read about was done by a company hired by SCRAM’s manufacturer.
"Recently judges in both Florida and Michigan have found the device to be unreliable," he said. "All our other devices that have to do with alcohol or drugs are monitored by Health and Human Services. There’s no such regulation for this device."
http://www.chronicle.duke.edu/vnews/display.v/ART/2006/01/20/43d0d4b941273

SCRAM: AMS Researches Again?

It appears that AMS has recently engaged in further research of their SCRAM system. I recently found a publishing with researchers that I have not seen before, it appeared to be published JAN. 2006 but all I can find is the abstract, which is not stamped. If this is a recent study, shouldn't this have been completed before they launched the device on the public? Again the research is more on TAC/BrAC correlations, and the conclusion:
"Within the limits of the laboratory study, the device consistently detected consumption of approximately 2 standard drinks. On average, the device shows discriminative validity as a semiquantitative measure of alcohol consumption but individual readings often are not equivalent to simultaneous BrACs."
Thus adding to knowledge already aquired, and since the conditions of most alcohol related probations is abstinence, any alcohol detected should warrant probable cause, regardless actual BrAC. Probable cause meaning a police dispatch, or immediate notification so any false positive can proven without costing the public money, and the guilty proven so. There is no question the device can detect consumption, working with the exterior influences is where the focus needs to be. RFI has yet to be a focus but seems to be a possible cause for at least two published stories of erroneous readings, and my theory for using the device would remedy false-negatives as well, which was reported by PIRE in an earlier post. It appears there are studies being done on the Giner TAC sensor as well, which sounds to me to be at an even greater risk for false-positives. The menu of substances that contain any type of alcohol and we use in our everyday lives is vast, including gasoline, windex, laundry soaps just to name a few and since our hands are what we use the products with, it seems the risk factor is amplified accordingly. I have found research on this device which is similar to that of SCRAM but have found no reports of false positives to date.
AMS's earlier research states,"Further analysis of the TAC graph uncovers that the client’s TAC reading level is still above .02% the morning after the event. Call the client in for a Breathalyzer test as secondary proof of a drinking event once AMS has delivered a final analysis." which is what I have been saying all along but the preceding paragraph states,"Before the client is contacted, AMS must perform a final analysis so the results can be defended in court, if necessary." What about the clients right to defend in court, or should I say offend since they carry the burden? Sounds like a delay to obfuscate facts and protect thier multi-million dollar investment because we already know how fast a .02 will metabolize. This is why for-profit companies should not be able to sell products (especially in thier infancy) to the legal or medical community that may jeopordize a clients well being. These factors met in Daubert vs. Merill Dow and had a serious impact on Rule 702 (admitting scientific evidence) but the questions of reliability for what is now called Daubert Science or Junk Science is still scrutinized by a human, the Judge.
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1530-0277.2006.00004.x



EXCERT FROM THE WHITE PAPER
During this period, at 12:17 PM, the bracelet recorded a 0.006% TAC reading.
This low-level reading occurred because the test subject worked in an area where alcohol
was used to clean circuitry components. Except for this anomaly, the TAC reading during the
"Normal" time frame was at or near 0.000% since there was no alcohol in the subject’s
system.

HOME

SCRAM: An Investigation

PIRE is currently conducting studies on the reliability of available transdermal alcohol sensors. Apparently the results are just examples not conclusions until the ever so trustworthy NHTSA reviews them. Their findings thus far include some theories that I had not yet encountered, such as the original tests claim :
Case Study 1. Elevated TAC Reading
On 12/30/2002, the SCRAM Network generated an Alcohol Detected alert for Client 1. This
alert is severe in nature and should be analyzed immediately.
An Alcohol Detected alert is generated when the SCRAM bracelet detects ethanol over the
typical agency standard of .02%. An interferant can also cause elevated TAC readings. By
analyzing the alert, a real drinking event can quickly be differentiated from an alert that is
caused by use of a banned substance or an environmental factor.

PIRE has found that Detection algorithm is good not perfect – it can
misclassify rapid rise in BAC as an external interferent.

An example of a false-negative, however this device is spot-on accurate remember! A good look at AMS's perfume test shows a fast paced decline in which they claim differen- tiated the interferent from a drinking episode, but pulling the bracelet up tight could retard diffusion and create the curve. Had they not known the environmental factors I am confident they would have prosecuted on the curve. This is only one example, there are thousands of tests per day in a non-controlled environment.
Here are some of PIRE's findings thus far:
• Minor problems included:
– SCRAM: some bouncing on ankle while exercising
– SCRAM: minor delays at airport security (5-7 min)
– SCRAM: minor bruising two female subjects
– WrisTAS: raising rash on skin surface
– WrisTAS: pads get stinky after a week
– WrisTAS: must remove for showering
Some SCRAM-related issues:
• Data may get spiky at times – probably water
accumulating in the sensor – accuracy suffers
• If water is present, sensor may lose ability to detect
ethanol or have delayed sensitivity – with a recent
design change this may now be better
• Paced drinking with food may not trigger an "alert"
• Detection algorithm is good not perfect – it can
misclassify rapid rise in BAC as an external interferent –
their algorithm tries to protect against false positives
• Modem communications usually work well, but they do
not work with mobile phones – this will be problem if no
landline available to offender.
• A few landlines had trouble dialing out.
Conditions of the skin also distort readings, and the accumulation of water in the bracelet ( if the reads are spikey, unknown environmental factors may play a role-RFI) brings me back to my original hypothesis of erroneous obstruction reads. This aspect of the device works like this:
As the IR sensor shines an infrared beam against the client’s skin, the skin absorbs a certain
amount of the signal. The rest of the signal is reflected back to a receiver in the SCRAM
bracelet. The receiver measures the amount of signal that was reflected, and converts that
signal to a voltage. Initially, the voltage is used to establish the amount of signal that is
typically reflected off of that particular client’s skin. Subsequent signals are compared against
this initial signal. If the subject inserts a foreign object between the SCRAM bracelet and the
skin, the strength of the reflected infrared signal changes. If the subject removes the SCRAM
bracelet, the SCRAM bracelet detects the absence of an infrared signal, and generates a
Potential Removal alert.

Hypothesis: Dehydration, dry skin, or water trapped in the bracelet (sensor) may alter the amount of the signal absorbed by the skin, thus therefore resulting in an erroneous read. Also, it may only take a small portion of the sock under the corner of the bracelet to move the sensor and register as obstruction, with no way to prove this was the case they would believe it was intentional.
AMS reports the IR distance differential for different types of obstructants in volts:
Client 1) Normal = 3.58 - 4.11
Black trash bag = 3.05 - 3.12
difference -.53 - .99 (assuming the guage is difficult,these are examples of the sensitivity)

Client 2) Normal = 4.16 - 4.29
Saran wrap = 4.29 - 4.87
difference +.13 - .56 volts

Client 3) Normal = 3.55 - 4.02
Thick Sock = 5.00 - 5.00
difference +1.45 - .98 volts

These experiments were conducted in alliance with the consumption of alcohol, and in all of these cases, although the TAC/BAC correlation was distorted, there was an indication of consumption. Unfortunately the sock was the most effective interference, the common everyday apparel. Client 3 shows a thick sock has a dramatic effect on the read, a guage which exceeded this devices measuring ability, leaving me with the conclusion that the top of the sock so much as in the corner of the bracelet can produce an erroneous read, and pant legs, blankets, etc...
With 2,200 people wearing SCRAM tested twice an hour, that is 105,600 tests daily so the importance of reliability is overwhelming. If SCRAM were 99.9% effective this would mean that today there were over 100 false positive/negative reads. Their claim is that it tests for alcohol twice an hour, so this may not include the obstruction tests. As a result of the saran wrap test they quote," The abrupt and sustained peaking of the IR Distance Voltage readings proves that
the subject used an obstruction to mask the presence of alcohol." According to the sock test and my experience this proves nothing, it gives reasonable suspicion, probable cause and is a cause for action (not enough for conviction), making it necessary to find corroborating evidence such as urinalysis, PBT, even a paper trail. The alcohol could be from the spouse spraying disinfectant and the vulnerability of the exposed bracelet from a sock just convicted the innocent!
REFERENCE:
http://www.nlectc.org/training/commcorr2005/marques_comcorr2005_transdermal.pdf
http://j.b5z.net/i/u/2099113/i/TamperDetectionWhitePaper.pdf

Lasley, 20, signed up for the anklet because he hopes a Durham judge will give him a lighter sentence this month on a charge of drunken driving _ he faces a year in prison...The anklet is also sensitive to any alcohol that comes in contact with the skin. For example, Lasley's anklet registered when he put on a shirt washed in a detergent that contained alcohol. http://www.statesville.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=SRL%2FMGArticle%2FWSJ_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031783999368&path=!statenews

HOME

SCRAM: If The Courts Don't Buy It, The Defendants Will 2

DURHAM -- Judges and lawyers are mixed on the propriety of using unapproved monitors called SCRAMS to monitor drunken driving suspects.
Durham District Judge Marcia Morey expressed outrage that, until recently, a SCRAM marketer was given front-of-the-courtroom access that made him appear to be an official state functionary.
Kenneth Hewett, the salesman, now sits in the spectator section of the courtroom. However, he remains free to approach DWI suspects and attempt to turn them into customers.
"It's a dangerous precedent for the court to start empowering private companies like this," said Morey. "There's tremendous potential for disreputable companies to make money in the criminal justice system. We're supposed to enforce the law, not enrich private companies.
"The way this has been applied and presented so far is at best questionable and at worst unethical, perhaps even illegal if false pretenses are used," Morey said.
She said it was wrong to let people think they would receive judicial leniency by using SCRAM.
By law, the judge noted, those convicted of the most serious level of DWI must serve 30 or more days in jail whether or not they abstained from alcohol while awaiting trial. Those found guilty of the next highest level must be locked up for at least seven days.
But at least two judges, Craig Brown of Durham and Joe Buckner of the Orange-Chatham district, are on the opposite side of the fence from Morey when it comes to SCRAM.
Buckner has an endorsement on the company's Web site, describing SCRAM as the best thing to hit North Carolina since electricity. His photo and another endorsement appear on the company's promotional literature.
"I'm not selling the product," Buckner said in an interview Friday. "If people in Durham don't want to use it, that's their business. If people have other good ideas to address what everybody agrees to be a problem, I'm ready. I'm not wedded to SCRAM or any other one solution. I just know we need to manage the problem drinkers who are out there maiming and killing people on our highways."
Brown, who was assigned last week to Durham's high-volume traffic court, gave his audience a short talk about SCRAM. He said some DWI defendants might want to consider the monitoring device. But he also noted that its use was voluntary, and that the SCRAM marketer was not a judicial employee.
"I try to be extremely neutral," said Brown. "SCRAM is a for-profit business. I don't think it's my job to blow their horn. Any judge has to be very careful about promoting a for-profit product of any kind. That's not my place. I'm not a salesman. But I do think this equipment has some value both in terms of public protection and treatment for those with alcohol problems."
Lawyer Marcus Hill said he often recommends the device to clients.
For one thing, it lets judges know conclusively if a person has been drinking between the time of his arrest and trial, according to Hill.
"A lot of clients say, 'I'm clean, I'm clean,'" Hill said. "But judges hear that so much, they sometimes discount it. This allows us to prove someone is not drinking."
In addition, pretrial abstinence for a repeat drunken driver might mean the difference between a jail sentence of 30 days and a term as long as two years, according to Hill.
Lawyer Bill Thomas said, on the other hand, that he would be "extremely hesitant to have any device put on a client that was not proven to be 100 percent accurate. A false positive reading could prove problematic. You could, in fact, create a problem that didn't exist.
"I also have questions about a private company being in the courtroom and trying to sell something for a profit," said Thomas. "This should be closely regulated and approved by the state."
http://www.herald-sun.com/durham/4-687171.html

The SCRAM bracelet cannot be removed by the offender or easily tricked. An infrared laser reflects onto the skin and records an obstruction if something, such as a sock, gets between the leg and the bracelet. In Warren County, Mo., offenders using the bracelet get one "free" obstruction; after that, an obstruction is counted as a violation...
http://www.innovations.harvard.edu/news/9315.html

If SCRAM proves reliable, probation departments could cut costs, said AMS officials. 03/2004
http://www.window.state.tx.us/txinnovator/ti0403/

HOME