Law: Continuous Monitoring (Ca. AB 1832)

California's AB 1832 (Introduced by Rudy Bermudez, who is running for senate. Would his being a "victim" of a drunk driver distort his views on justice?) is a bill that makes "continuous monitoring" a legal alternative to incarceration. While most would agree this is certainly a more constructive approach, the research quoted has it's skeptics. "According to the author, "Studies have shown that a driver who has been convicted of one or more DUIs is almost twice as likely to be involved in a fatal accident, killing or injuring themselves or others." I've seen other studies that show that a near 90% of actual drunk driving fatalities are first time offenders, but zeal can't be reasoned with. After reviewing the NHTSA's FARS Database (Ca. 2003), fatal accidents where all drivers were tested resulting in .00, accounted for 117 "alcohol related" deaths, and of the 1626 "alcohol related" deaths, 922 were where the driver was tested .08 or greater.
Redundant I know, but our legal community continues, and so will I. The report quotes this on SCRAM, "An environmental alcohol curve will be characterized by a steep rise to peak, remain at that level as long as the bracelet remains in the environment, the display a sharp decrease back to the zero base line once the bracelet is removed from the contaminated air." The picture is an unexpected contaminent during the testing, and proves vulnerability. Once the bracelet is removed from the contaminated air, the bracelet need be worn tight, that air is not just quickly removed. PIRE's research also showed us that water accumulates in the bracelet, ethanol is miscible (highly soluble) with water, which again can and does retard the diffusion. And children have lost their parents because of a "curve". This low-level read lasted in excess of two hours with a gradual decrease, anoter obfuscation is the fact that it can't read past .08, so ones TAC may have been at .79, yet a retarded diffusion will still impute guilt.
"Research was conducted on more than 100 different individuals providing thousands of SCRAM TAC to BAC comparisons. The conclusion was that there is a reliable correlation between SCRAM transdermal alcohol concentration and conventional breath tests results over varying periods of time on typical individuals under varying degrees of alcohol intake." OK, so when one drinks, they transdermally emit ethanol, that study is done, and most was completed in 1992 by Robert Swift, before AMS existed. Any studies done on the abrasions and scars left by the device? Are they sanitized before reuse, and with what? How does one treat the wounds? Would not the bacteria accumulate in the bracelet, in the water? For-profit is not synonymous with for-justice. The duration can last up to three years, and while AMS has backed it's claim that 40% of wearers still drink or tamper to 18%, I am convinced that no human can wear this device for three years without a violation.
More: "While the number of alcohol-related deaths due to traffic fatalities has increased, so too has the total number of traffic deaths, though the percentage of total traffic fatalities due to alcohol remains at, or near, 40%." False, the NHTSA includes intoxicated pedestrians and passengers, (Ca. 2003) of the 1684 listed as drunk, 806 were tested over .08. NHTSA listed 878 drivers with no proof, under the "legal limit", and includes over 121 drivers at .00.

Arguments:
a) The California Attorney for Criminal Justice (CACJ) states, "CACJ is concerned that SCRAM devices have not been found to be wholly reliable. There is a scarcity of independent studies confirming the accuracy and reliability of these devices. For this reason, the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts has issued a warning to judges who want to mandate the use of the devices. There is too great a risk of false positives. CACJ is concerned that these untested devices will result in the wrongful incarceration and conviction of thousands of Californians. Yet, this bill does not establish any regulatory oversight, minimum product standards for SCRAM devices, or impose basic training requirements for individuals operating these devices. Without these safeguards, the State cannot ensure that SCRAM is reliable in every case. By contrast, the State has adopted extensive regulations governing the use of breathalyzers to reduce the possibility of unreliable test results.
b) The American Civil Liberties Union states, "We are concerned about the accuracy and effectiveness if these devices. We are concerned that these devices will have the same problem that the drug-sweat-patches have (e.g., false positives and defects that will be interpreted as tampering). Providing our concerns about the accuracy and effectiveness of the devices are met, we raise the following issues for your consideration: There are no time limits on the device and this bill also requires 60 days of abstinence before the person no longer must use the continuous alcohol monitoring devices. This looks an unintended consequence of the amendments (eliminating the three-year maximum) that should be clarified. Allowing the imposition of an alcohol monitoring device for driving with a suspended license (Vehicle Code Section 1460.2) with no indication of alcohol use (other than the initial DUI) seems unduly intrusive and unrelated to the offense of driving without a license. In practice, this requirement could mean an individual could have a continuous monitoring device imposed after being convicted of driving without a license after a single DUI (this could be years after the original DUI if the person never went to DUI school). Finally, we suggest that the individual's ability to pay for the devices be considered before any costs are imposed."
c) The Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety states, "This bill is overbroad and would lead to continued false positive readings by such devices for behavior which is entirely lawful. Notwithstanding personal viewpoints about whether or not such persons should continue to drink alcohol at all, the devices which would be utilized as a result of this bill have no means of differentiating between the detection of alcohol which is consumed in conjunction with driving and alcohol which is consumed in the privacy of one's own home with no connection to driving. Unfortunately, it is also unclear as to who would actually monitor these devices for the positive identification of alcohol and through what resources we would fund the monitoring. Law enforcement in general, including probation officers, already has a difficult time responding to the needs of communities. The overbroad application of the target technology seems wasteful of already scarce public safety resources. Vehicle ignition interruption devices would appear to be a more focused and reliable means of addressing DUIs."

Support also comes from members of the judiciary and special interest groups such as MADD. This would make California the 5th state to enact a law that makes this a sentencing option. I wonder if Bermudez, is aware of how many subjects were convicted for wearing socks or incidental exposure, justice or simply interested in furthering a political career?

Reference:
http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_1801-1850/ab_1832_cfa_20060417_131352_asm_comm.html
http://www.autospectator.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=4590

LAW: Another Crushing Strike Against Our Constitution

While I've researched the fallibility's of alcohol detecting devices, law enforcement is not usually my topic of study. It was once said that our legal system was designed to be 85% effective. While some innocent may get caught in unusual circumstances leading to a conviction, a guilty man may be dismissed on charges where the investigators failed to gather/present direct evidence, the latter being the greater number. Today, as prosecuters use the plea bargain as a weapon and our Constitution fading to memory, in my opinion the legal community has lost sight of protecting the innocent and gained an interest in cashing in on guilt.

California Police may enter a house without warrants to arrest suspected drunk drivers, ruled by the California Supreme Court. The decision follows similar rulings in nearly a dozen other states. Justice Marvin Baxter wrote that the loss of evidence at issue was obtaining a measurement of the suspect's BAC. Critics fear that this will give carte blanche to the police to assume one was drinking and enter their home while they are sleeping to arrest them. With the anonymous phone tip, it introduces a host of negative possibility's such as: swerve to miss an animal, get invaded and arrested. Not to mention the angered ex, neighbor or officer! What about the restaurant employee who's vehicle was parked outside an establishment that serves liquor? Don't be alarmed if your an attractive person, the genius Baxter wrote, "In holding that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry here, we need not decide, and do not hold, that the police may enter a home without a warrant to effect an arrest of a DUI suspect in every case,".
The case that set the precedent was one where a neighbor claims to have seen the defendant driving, one who may have had an ax to grind? Apparently the ACLU took a case where the police found the wallet of a girl who had attended a party where there was underage drinking. They found her driver's license, showed up at her parents' home, got her out of bed, and gave her a breath test to see if she'd been drinking (not even driving -- just underage drinking). All without a warrant. The girl hadn't had a drop. But she took the test anyway, passed it, then sued.
A good read:
http://www.duiblog.com/2005/05/09#a162

Reference:
http://www.theagitator.com/archives/2006_06.php
http://cbs13.com/topstories/local_story_152182332.html