SCRAM: Sufficating the Constitution
While some may claim the Right To Privacy was abolished when one was put on probation, an alternative to jail where there is no privacy, other constitutional rights have been disregarded when ordered to wear such a device.
First and foremost, ''nemo tenetur seipsum accusare,'' that is, ''no man is bound to accuse himself.'' Most clients are in favor of wearing the device, confident they can adhere to the terms and ignorant to the possibility of an erroneous read, until they walk into an office building with freshly cleaned carpets, or cut their lawn and with no delinquent actions- Incriminated themselves. This priveledge was intended to eliminate coercion in interrogation and in testimony, which lawyers are ever so gracious for an opportunity to use ones wording (not meaning) against them and manipulate facts to impute guilt. In North Carolina they have been having problems with independant for-profit companies selling the device to defendants, and Greg Stahl, the AOC's deputy director, raised a possible constitutional issue with SCRAM. "Can an offender be charged money to monitor himself, and monitor himself in a way that he might go to prison if he flunks?" Stahl asked rhetorically. In researching I found this excerpt defining the Fifth Amendment-...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; DUE PROCESS?
Now lets say there is a reading, false or not, a probationer will receive a letter in the mail which states the defendant is entitled to a hearing " to prove why he/she should not be held in contempt of court". In other words, Prove Your Innocents. While Presumption of innocents is not cited explicitly in the Constitution it is widely held to follow from the 5th, 6th and 14th amendments.The intent is to put the burden of proof on the prosecution for proving innocents can be near impossible, for instance it's often impossible to establish an alibi if the person is home alone at the time of the crime, which happens all too often with the SCRAM system. A great number of accusation seem to occur when the defendants are sleeping, and with no further investigation, the defendant is forced to reap the consequences or confess to a violation that may or most likely didn't occur in hopes for a lighter sentence. I am conviced that they do not want the burden of proof because that may lead to an undetermined amount of erroneous reads and deem such a lucrative product frivolous. Further investigation does not necessarily mean wasting tax dollars on a police dispatch...the Sixth Amendment give us the...
NOTICE OF ACCUSATION
Which states the constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation entitles the defendant to insist that the indictment apprise him/her of the crime charged with such reasonable certainty that he/she can make their defense and protect themselves after judgment against another prosecution on the same charge. Informing a defendant would warrant nothing more than a phone call and an innocent client would have the time needed for an actual toxicology test, and that would be reasonable certainty that he/she can make their defense. If you are thinking this is a post-conviction offense, it would appear the revocation of parole or probation which has been imposed following sentencing, and prison disciplinary hearings will be determined according to due process and equal protection standards rather than by further expansion of the Sixth Amendment.
Due Process, Right to be Presumed Innocent, self incrimination, 5th, 6th and 14th amendments are just a few of the Constitutional rights to sufficate when "we the people" allow our legal community to become over-zealous denizens of for-profit companies. With no scientific scrutiny they allowed a device so vulnerable it "can detect them (socks) too...", as quoted by Jon Ugval of House Arrest Sevices, to jeapordize the liberty and family's well being of unsuspecting wearers. I have not even explored the fact that in trial there is no evidence, other than the reading, that is the bracelet is not equipped with a device to save the incriminating sample to be observed by the defense. The abuse of process, the convictions secured from reasonable suspicion or The Right To Bodily Integrity. Since my first post there has been two studies not commisioned by AMS, and PIRE's research found two of the 18 test subjects endured minor bruising and these people were probably not under the same circumstances as an actual probationer such as, no drivers liscense, walking or bicycling to the requisite of meetings, counseling, work etcetra. My research has found that 4 out of 10 wearers are subject to incredibly painful abrasions and infections, which in some cases resulted in permanent scars, it is 8 ounces pulling on your skin with every step, every motion, and treatment for the abrasions is null for ointments and cleaners can trigger erroneous reads and the bacteria is trapped in the bracelet, but until there is an actual case of necrosis, concern much like the burden of proof is placed on the client!
-Mike Gephart, corrections unit supervisor for Hennepin County- In some cases, he said, people admit: "Yeah, I did have a couple of beers.But I'm done. Others are in complete denial and say, 'I didn't drink.' "Instead, the latter group blames the device for emitting a false positive,Gephart said. One individual, for example, insisted a hair-care product containing alcohol had somehow triggered a bogus reading. That person was issued a warrant and hauled back to jail. http://lawenforcement.usenetbot.com/archives/2003/10/27/P2.html
ON THE OTHER HAND:
The anklet also is sensitive to any alcohol that comes in contact with the skin. For example, one anklet registered when the man wearing it put on a shirt washed in a detergent that contained alcohol.
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/news/local/12204846.htm
AND GEPHART AGAIN SAME ARTICLE:
Gephart said that like any new technology, there have been "minor" issues with SCRAM. In one case, authorities issued a warrant to put someone back in jail after a positive alcohol reading was triggered.But the warrant was recalled when officials couldn't "absolutely"determine a drinking violation occurred.Without going into detail, Gephart said the substance that triggered the reading is something that could be found on a construction site, as the probationer claimed.
Originally posted: 02/28/2006
REFERENCES:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
http://lp.findlaw.com/
HOME
First and foremost, ''nemo tenetur seipsum accusare,'' that is, ''no man is bound to accuse himself.'' Most clients are in favor of wearing the device, confident they can adhere to the terms and ignorant to the possibility of an erroneous read, until they walk into an office building with freshly cleaned carpets, or cut their lawn and with no delinquent actions- Incriminated themselves. This priveledge was intended to eliminate coercion in interrogation and in testimony, which lawyers are ever so gracious for an opportunity to use ones wording (not meaning) against them and manipulate facts to impute guilt. In North Carolina they have been having problems with independant for-profit companies selling the device to defendants, and Greg Stahl, the AOC's deputy director, raised a possible constitutional issue with SCRAM. "Can an offender be charged money to monitor himself, and monitor himself in a way that he might go to prison if he flunks?" Stahl asked rhetorically. In researching I found this excerpt defining the Fifth Amendment-...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; DUE PROCESS?
Now lets say there is a reading, false or not, a probationer will receive a letter in the mail which states the defendant is entitled to a hearing " to prove why he/she should not be held in contempt of court". In other words, Prove Your Innocents. While Presumption of innocents is not cited explicitly in the Constitution it is widely held to follow from the 5th, 6th and 14th amendments.The intent is to put the burden of proof on the prosecution for proving innocents can be near impossible, for instance it's often impossible to establish an alibi if the person is home alone at the time of the crime, which happens all too often with the SCRAM system. A great number of accusation seem to occur when the defendants are sleeping, and with no further investigation, the defendant is forced to reap the consequences or confess to a violation that may or most likely didn't occur in hopes for a lighter sentence. I am conviced that they do not want the burden of proof because that may lead to an undetermined amount of erroneous reads and deem such a lucrative product frivolous. Further investigation does not necessarily mean wasting tax dollars on a police dispatch...the Sixth Amendment give us the...
NOTICE OF ACCUSATION
Which states the constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation entitles the defendant to insist that the indictment apprise him/her of the crime charged with such reasonable certainty that he/she can make their defense and protect themselves after judgment against another prosecution on the same charge. Informing a defendant would warrant nothing more than a phone call and an innocent client would have the time needed for an actual toxicology test, and that would be reasonable certainty that he/she can make their defense. If you are thinking this is a post-conviction offense, it would appear the revocation of parole or probation which has been imposed following sentencing, and prison disciplinary hearings will be determined according to due process and equal protection standards rather than by further expansion of the Sixth Amendment.
Due Process, Right to be Presumed Innocent, self incrimination, 5th, 6th and 14th amendments are just a few of the Constitutional rights to sufficate when "we the people" allow our legal community to become over-zealous denizens of for-profit companies. With no scientific scrutiny they allowed a device so vulnerable it "can detect them (socks) too...", as quoted by Jon Ugval of House Arrest Sevices, to jeapordize the liberty and family's well being of unsuspecting wearers. I have not even explored the fact that in trial there is no evidence, other than the reading, that is the bracelet is not equipped with a device to save the incriminating sample to be observed by the defense. The abuse of process, the convictions secured from reasonable suspicion or The Right To Bodily Integrity. Since my first post there has been two studies not commisioned by AMS, and PIRE's research found two of the 18 test subjects endured minor bruising and these people were probably not under the same circumstances as an actual probationer such as, no drivers liscense, walking or bicycling to the requisite of meetings, counseling, work etcetra. My research has found that 4 out of 10 wearers are subject to incredibly painful abrasions and infections, which in some cases resulted in permanent scars, it is 8 ounces pulling on your skin with every step, every motion, and treatment for the abrasions is null for ointments and cleaners can trigger erroneous reads and the bacteria is trapped in the bracelet, but until there is an actual case of necrosis, concern much like the burden of proof is placed on the client!
-Mike Gephart, corrections unit supervisor for Hennepin County- In some cases, he said, people admit: "Yeah, I did have a couple of beers.But I'm done. Others are in complete denial and say, 'I didn't drink.' "Instead, the latter group blames the device for emitting a false positive,Gephart said. One individual, for example, insisted a hair-care product containing alcohol had somehow triggered a bogus reading. That person was issued a warrant and hauled back to jail. http://lawenforcement.usenetbot.com/archives/2003/10/27/P2.html
ON THE OTHER HAND:
The anklet also is sensitive to any alcohol that comes in contact with the skin. For example, one anklet registered when the man wearing it put on a shirt washed in a detergent that contained alcohol.
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/news/local/12204846.htm
AND GEPHART AGAIN SAME ARTICLE:
Gephart said that like any new technology, there have been "minor" issues with SCRAM. In one case, authorities issued a warrant to put someone back in jail after a positive alcohol reading was triggered.But the warrant was recalled when officials couldn't "absolutely"determine a drinking violation occurred.Without going into detail, Gephart said the substance that triggered the reading is something that could be found on a construction site, as the probationer claimed.
Originally posted: 02/28/2006
REFERENCES:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
http://lp.findlaw.com/
HOME
posted by marcellus91872 at 1:37 AM
11 Comments:
My point in writing what I wrote, was more to discuss the idea of the scram being used at all. I can only imagine how many problems could be caused by such a sensitive device. Also I was hoping to point out that Dallas Texas is crazy on DUI's. Here are my other DUI related posts, if you are interested.
http://del.icio.us/baorao/DUI
Please, if you are serious about fighting the scram injustice as read in all these blogs, please write me (i am not a lawyer) at fightscraminjustice@gmail.com.
Please give your history while wearing your scram bracelet, along with any incidental information that might be helpful.
We cannot win alone, but in numbers we can. With you in this fight against injustice.
i have been ordered by family court to wear a scram to have custady of my 13 yr old daughter i have had it on 3 mos i was also ordered not to consume or posess alcahol until my daughter is 18 yrs old i am 54 yrs old i have not been convicted or even accused of any crime i was told by my lawyer many people who get custady are not allowed a single beer (30 days in jail & foster care)this is really taking my rights away i need to know who & how to contact help any help would be greatly appreciated broncofun2@gmail.com
i was ordered to wear the scram unit in family court during a bitter divorce custody in fort worth; i've never been charged,arrested, nor convicted of any crime--alcohol or otherwise. this is in response to allegations from the ex. anything helpful is appreciated.
Well, 86% of wearers make it through without any problems, and some of the 14% are victims of their inabilty to comply. Stay away from alcohol products best you can.
I'm very interested in this notice of accusation, is that the law? I was just notified that I was incontemt of court by a false positive reading 11 weeks ago why did i just now find out when I have court tommarrow. email me if anybody has any answers at alex.francis21@gmail.com
the false positive was read on the last day I was ordered to have it on, I didn't drink.
"I'm very interested in this notice of accusation, is that the law?"
Actually it is a Constitutional Right under the Sixth Amendment which applies to probation and parole revocation hearings as well as prison disciplinary hearings rather than further expansion, but since special interest groups such as MADD do a lot of the voting, the Constitution has taken a backseat to zeal, greed etc...
I have only had the scram bracelet on for a few weeks and on my second visit to have it checked I was informed that I had tampered with the device twice for a number of hours each incident. I was told I had put something to block the device from contact with my skin. I have done no such thing and am now awaiting some sort of decision. How can I fight a false accusation??? I also wonder how is the device constitutional while I am not under custody?? Am I not a free man until proven guilty? Am I not free to live my life until sentenced??? I am told I am not on probation so why am I under stiff consequences of rules until my case is over???
during the original research they attempted to obstruct with cardboard, black trash bag, sock and saran wrap. All still detected alcohol, while it was muted and the sock most successful at muting the episode alcohol was still detected!
We are going through this now and I have realized there is no real way to fight SCRAM unless you are notified within a reasonable time that you were accused of drinking. If they notify you within hours or a day you could go get a urine specimen to look for alcohol or metabolites of alcohol. You can take something called a Peth test for a blood test to prove you didn't drink, which goes back 2-3 weeks. Or you can get a hair follicle test to prove you didn't drink and that goes back 90 days. Both are very expensive and there could be faulty resuls. The PO could argue that the Peth test requires a certain large number of drinks to come back positive. Or the hair follicle test could be affected by hair products and shampoos since all have alcohol. They supposedly wash to soak all of that off but I don't know how reliable that is.
If you are on SCRAM (and my husband has been for several years now) I would suggest doing another second method of breath alcohol monitoring or drug and alcohol testing on a regular basis and video taping yourself doing it with a date and time stamp. I would suggest getting a car device and an in home device or portable breathalyzer and video taping yourself starting the car and or testing every hour until you get the scram off. Do like a video blog of yourself not drinking. That would be the only way to fight a fake accusation.
My husband almost got his probation revoked over steam cleaning our carpets with vinegar. That cost us $6500 in legal fees and bond reinstatement and on top of that he's worn the SCRAM and had the interlock for an additional year, has to pay an additional fine of $1000 and has to pay additional Probation fines and fees. Now that he's had the SCRAM on for an extra year they are again accusing him of drinking on it on two random occasions and he didn't do it. every time he's ever gone in to have the battery switched out there is someone at the office telling him that they were supposed to get it off that day but SCRAM sent in another false positive. It's a lucrative form of slavery for the county and Alcohol Monitoring Inc. I would just love to see the contracts and kickback arrangements there. Never give up! Fight back!
(Not to mention it keeps the legal industry thriving and keeps money coming into the officers and counties from MADD).
Post a Comment
<< Home