SCRAM: A Judge's Review
I had heard from a few people that Judge Dennis Powers, from the first published proven false-positive, was releasing an article for the Michigan Bar. I have also heard rumors that threats of action from AMS retarded the publishing, and it is quite the scrutinous review. The introduction states," The secure continuous remote alcohol monitor (SCRAM) tether represents the hope of monitoring defendants who are on probation, ensuring that they refrain from alcohol, without resorting to jail. If not proven reliable, however, the SCRAM tether may not be used as even a screening device, and jail time should not result from its reports. This article discusses a recent district court case involving a SCRAM tether and explores the evidentiary difficulties surrounding its use.1"
Basically more of the same, still nothing on the "obstruction" aspect of the device, but does give an in depth look at the case. There were multiple false-positives, the first one lasted 63 hours (water trapped in the bracelet + fitted tight and/or other form of alcohol/interferent?) with 10 hours of a constant TAC. The second alledged episode the tether reported a TAC of .025, the PBT was .00. The third allegation continued for 12 hours, ranging from .02 to .04 ( Judge Powers appears to be concerned with endogenous ethanol, food combinations, etc...) while the client was in the hospital. There were at least two different bracelets worn by the defendant, so it was not a malfunctioning tether.
The Judge also verified my statements that the device does not meet the requirements of Daubert as scientific evidence, and states," While the SCRAM tether was measuring transdermal alcohol diffused by the defendant, the court was concerned with the origin of that alcohol. AMS’s after-the-fact attempts to rehabilitate its device in relation to Daubert are unsuccessful in the eyes of these writers."
Jefferey Hawthorne claimed his device never registers false-positives, I guess the defense should of asked about anomaly's!! I stated elsewhere that I believe 75% of the 40% of wearers that still tamper or drink (2004) were falsly accused, three false-positives on one client, and we still have yet to see a research on this "confirmed obstruction". The most recent recidivism rate I've seen quoted from AMS was 18%.
http://www.michbar.org/journal/pdf/pdf4article1014.pdf
The body of evidence supplied by the defendant made it clear that the readings by the SCRAM tether were not necessarily the result of prolonged drinking episodes. The data did not match the final conclusion, andwithout further research and foundation, the‘‘analytical gap’’ warned of in Gilbert cannot be overcome. There is much more occurring within the body with regard to the discharge of alcohol through the skin than the court was previously aware of, and much more remains to be done, even with the availabilityof the Sakai Study.
Basically more of the same, still nothing on the "obstruction" aspect of the device, but does give an in depth look at the case. There were multiple false-positives, the first one lasted 63 hours (water trapped in the bracelet + fitted tight and/or other form of alcohol/interferent?) with 10 hours of a constant TAC. The second alledged episode the tether reported a TAC of .025, the PBT was .00. The third allegation continued for 12 hours, ranging from .02 to .04 ( Judge Powers appears to be concerned with endogenous ethanol, food combinations, etc...) while the client was in the hospital. There were at least two different bracelets worn by the defendant, so it was not a malfunctioning tether.
The Judge also verified my statements that the device does not meet the requirements of Daubert as scientific evidence, and states," While the SCRAM tether was measuring transdermal alcohol diffused by the defendant, the court was concerned with the origin of that alcohol. AMS’s after-the-fact attempts to rehabilitate its device in relation to Daubert are unsuccessful in the eyes of these writers."
Jefferey Hawthorne claimed his device never registers false-positives, I guess the defense should of asked about anomaly's!! I stated elsewhere that I believe 75% of the 40% of wearers that still tamper or drink (2004) were falsly accused, three false-positives on one client, and we still have yet to see a research on this "confirmed obstruction". The most recent recidivism rate I've seen quoted from AMS was 18%.
http://www.michbar.org/journal/pdf/pdf4article1014.pdf
The body of evidence supplied by the defendant made it clear that the readings by the SCRAM tether were not necessarily the result of prolonged drinking episodes. The data did not match the final conclusion, andwithout further research and foundation, the‘‘analytical gap’’ warned of in Gilbert cannot be overcome. There is much more occurring within the body with regard to the discharge of alcohol through the skin than the court was previously aware of, and much more remains to be done, even with the availabilityof the Sakai Study.
posted by marcellus91872 at 2:45 AM
4 comments
