Law: Consumption or Inhalation?

To do this research I had to use alternative inhaled forms of such as:

Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE), and ethanol are used in oxygenated fuels-It is now absolete, but were talking inhalation here.
MTBE equivalents rapidly distributed to all tissues examined, with the largest percentages distributed to liver. An inhaled dose that is, then I found:"In urine of humans, 2-methyl-2,3-butane diol, 2-hydroxy-2-methylbutyrate and 3-hydroxy-3-methylbutyrate were recovered as major excretory products in urine."
About 41% of the inhaled dose appeared in the urine (as metabolites other than TBA- the biomarker)." The major metabolite, comigrated with synthetic α-hydroxyisobutyric acid, and accounted for 70% of the total MtBE associated metabolites excreted in the urine. A second metabolite, identified as 2-methyl-propane-1,2 diol accounted for 14% of the urinary metabolites."Two additional, unidentified metabolites accounted for 15% of those in the urine. This research paper was published 12/1998, so even if the unidentified metabolites were not EtG, my research suggests that inhalation and dermal exposure could trigger an erroneous read, in combination more so, such as cleaning a bathroom!
Dr. Skipper, responsible for bringing EtG testing to the U.S. has elaborated-
Skipper said there were 61 people who reported to his EtG registry and 15 of them had undergone testing on their own. Most of the rest of his talk dealt with using clinical correlation and he also made slides of that list household items containing alcohol, which he says causes him concern. Then he introduced a doctor with the Michigan HPRP. He said they were having a problem with positives. They had 2 RN's, both female, both pregnant, positive EtGs were 150 and 270, and both denied any alcohol except cologne and hand sanitizer use (30 times a day). He noticed after applying Purell himself that he felt kind of light-headed, so he did a BAC and it was 0.02! Did it on others after a single application and BAC's ranged from 0.01 t0 0.035 . So he did a Purell study, with 24 participants. Divided them into 4 groups: skin + inhalation, inhalation only, skin only (used a laminar flow hood to prevent inhalation of Purell fumes) and control group. They then drew BACs at 20, 40, 60, and 90 minutes. The group with both skin and inhalation of Purell showed significant rises in BACs. What it showed them was that INHALATION is a major absorption route for Purell, not skin absorption. They are trying to get it published. The implications here go further than just Purell…hairspray and perfume…any inhaled source of alcohol

EtG- The lack of or absence of alcohol dehydrogenase, due to the type of alcohol/intake means that exhaling is the only means of elimination other than glucuronidation. Dermal exposure is similar, but less effective method of transfer, in corroboration with inhalation (say cleaning a bathroom), and those with a hyperproductive pre-disposition are vulnerable.

SCRAM-Inhalation of Purell produced a BAC of .02, amount of exposure may be more significant if one were to work in a room where the carpet had just been cleaned, thus therefore possibly registering in more than one way by the SCRAM system, and easily exceeding the .02 tolerance.

Today, there is talk of launching PEth tests as a confirmatory test for the claims of false-positive, yet again, little published research on the topic, but may help establish a defense for it is detectable for a week.

A computer modem in the wearer's home is programmed to pick up information from the wireless monitor throughout the day, and any detection of alcohol causes the device to
immediately search for the modem and send a message to authorities.
William Burrell agrees. The Temple University criminal justice professor says the monitoring devices "assume perfect behavior and allow no margin for error. Not every violation is worthy of return to prison. This country has a fascination with
all things technological," he said.
"But we don't always have the capacity to use it effectively."

SCRAM Links

SCRAM: Progress?

It still concerns me that Rule 702 is an open door to for-profit companies to sell injustice. The SCRAM system continues to flourish, with little research done outside AMS's "Tamper-Proof" White Paper, and nothing that documents absolute reliability. The obfuscations are vast and as said in the past, a simple Constitutional procedure for use may remedy some fo the Daubert issues.

Suffolk County has decided to purchase 20 bracelets and kick-off a pilot-program, this time, however they don't seem to be inclined to use it as direct evidence as in the past. John Desmond, director of the Suffolk probation department, cited what appears to be concerns for justice.
"Although the devices have proved accurate in most tests, there have been cases that resulted in false positives, due to the wearer applying perfume or other alcohol-based products", Desmond said.
"It's important that the probation officers contact these individuals when they get an activation and administer a urine test or Breathalyzer," Desmond said.
This is what is needed to establish a known or potential rate of error. The Cleveland suburb Garfield Heights Probation officer Mark Mattern tested the device and claimed it can't be fooled, becareful- it can fool you!!

Durham, N.C.
"It's allowing somebody from outside the [court] system to make money off the system," said Nifong. "To allow a private company to come in here and skim money is something I'm not on board for."
Nifong said he was concerned by the fact that DWI suspects must pay a $75 hook-up fee and $12 a day for the SCRAM device,... "This is a way for people with money to get something people without money don't have, and the courts shouldn't be part of that," Nifong said....Nifong also said that some non-English-speaking Hispanics may pay for the SCRAM service under a misconception that it is guaranteed to help them in court, when it isn't...
SCRAM representatives deny reports, circulating in some court circles, that they charge a fee to disconnect their alcohol-sensing equipment from users.
Still, Judge David Q. LaBarre last month issued an order in the Durham DWI case of Adrian Lopez, saying the SCRAM program "refuses to remove Mr. Lopez's bracelet until he pays them an additional $175." In addition, SCRAM failed to give the court any information about the suspect's alcohol consumption -- if any -- because Lopez couldn't afford the $12-a-day monitoring fee, LaBarre wrote.
Lopez's bracelet soon was removed without any cost to him.

SCRAM Links

http://www.nydailynews.com/boroughs/story/413861p-349891c.html