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
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
posted by marcellus91872 at 6:50 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home