SCRAM: More Scrutiny...
A recent broadcast on Fox 2 News Detroit exploited the fact that the SCRAM system is non-specific. I was one of the wearers featured on the show with Chris Bruckner who had lost his livelihood and suffered incarceration for an offense the courts later determined did not happen. Over the last two years I have seen this in many cases, and there are unusual differences, such as clamps breaking or obstruction with no positive alcohol read, (saran wrap, cardboard, a sock and a black trash bag all failed to mask a drinking episode during research). Again, another segment on specificity, not the obstruction device.
I applaud Kerry Birmingham's criticism of the unconstitutional practices behind the procedures of use. They send a client a letter days after the alledged episode, which is a violation of the Sixth Amendment- Notice of Accusation which states an indictment will apprise a defendant of their allegation with reasonable certainty they can make their defense. This makes it impossible to prove a positive false. The letter I had received stated there was a hearing to "Prove why I should not be held in contempt of court", in essence prove my innocence. It is not directly printed in the Constitution but, innocent until proven guilty is a safe guard against wrongful convictions. I suppose they can close a lot of unsolved cases in this manner.
At the end of the segment, Richard Irrer (AMS) claimed one in one thousand reads are false-positives. I say prove it, there were at least 7 erroneous reads between the 4 wearers on the program. Does this ratio include obstructions? Is this just reads, with over 5000 wearers being tested at least 24 times a day? A report in 2004 cited that 60% of wearers continue to drink or attempt to tamper with the device and I boldly cited I believe that near 70% of these were erroneous. A more recent report claimed that 80% (or more) of the wearers comply, which adds verocity to my hypothesis The fact remains they have only proved consumption in a handful of cases, and only a few were able to PROVE INNOCENCE!
The feel: clunky. The look: embarrassing. But, it's a 24-hour watchdog — one that can send a person back to court, and back to jail.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/crime/stories/MYSA050107.drunkdetector.KENS.2aedd4d3.html
I applaud Kerry Birmingham's criticism of the unconstitutional practices behind the procedures of use. They send a client a letter days after the alledged episode, which is a violation of the Sixth Amendment- Notice of Accusation which states an indictment will apprise a defendant of their allegation with reasonable certainty they can make their defense. This makes it impossible to prove a positive false. The letter I had received stated there was a hearing to "Prove why I should not be held in contempt of court", in essence prove my innocence. It is not directly printed in the Constitution but, innocent until proven guilty is a safe guard against wrongful convictions. I suppose they can close a lot of unsolved cases in this manner.
At the end of the segment, Richard Irrer (AMS) claimed one in one thousand reads are false-positives. I say prove it, there were at least 7 erroneous reads between the 4 wearers on the program. Does this ratio include obstructions? Is this just reads, with over 5000 wearers being tested at least 24 times a day? A report in 2004 cited that 60% of wearers continue to drink or attempt to tamper with the device and I boldly cited I believe that near 70% of these were erroneous. A more recent report claimed that 80% (or more) of the wearers comply, which adds verocity to my hypothesis The fact remains they have only proved consumption in a handful of cases, and only a few were able to PROVE INNOCENCE!
The feel: clunky. The look: embarrassing. But, it's a 24-hour watchdog — one that can send a person back to court, and back to jail.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/crime/stories/MYSA050107.drunkdetector.KENS.2aedd4d3.html
posted by marcellus91872 at 7:09 PM
32 comments
