SCRAM: AMS Claims Another Judge Is Wrong
With LiLo in the picture, research on the subject has been overwhelming. Recently stumbled on this while trying to find any testing on the obstruction apect of the device. While still no testing found yet, I found the rebuttal for a case in Florida.
On September 15, 2009 AMS released a damage control statement covering the fact that they lost another case. Walton County Circuit Judge Kelvin Wells stated that the court would find that it appears that the detection made was a false-positive. The defendant (much like a case I helped in a few years ago) was exposed to haircare products while working in a hair salon. The defense relied on witnesses that testified they didn't see her drink and she didn't appear to be under the influence.
Hawthorne (inventor of SCRAM) testified that an alert could have been issued even if the client did not drink, then mentioned the list of "BANNED PRODUCTS" wearers are given to avoid false alerts. The rebuttal stated that "... the judge did not hear evidence to explain the difference between an environmental exposure to hairspray and actual consumption, resulting in confusion in the ruling and reports about the case." Really? Witnesses and the inventor testifying in open court that the banned products can produce an alert trumps the ridiculous notion that one can prove consumption by a read (especially if the standard is as it was years ago, topping out at .08) that is obfuscated at the get go.
CEO Mike Iiams says that alcohol-containing products like hairspray will oftentimes generate an alert, but that the SCRAM System can easily distinguish between exposure to environmental alcohol and actual consumption. Easily? If physiologists weren't so expensive! I wonder if Iiams is in full belief of this, he stated on a news cast here in Detroit we were in that some 1 in 1000 reads are false-positives. I had three on two bracelets, the famous Glaza case 3 on two bracelets and not to mention the hundreds that have contacted me over the years. I know Bayes Rule, a few of them probably were guilty, but without Constitutional procedures Iiams, I and the courts will never know.
Let us resolve to be masters, not the victims, of our history, controlling our own destiny without giving way to blind suspicions and emotions.-John F. Kennedy
Referrence:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS165789+15-Sep-2009+PRN20090915
http://www.nwfdailynews.com/news/release-20500-defuniak-springs.html
On September 15, 2009 AMS released a damage control statement covering the fact that they lost another case. Walton County Circuit Judge Kelvin Wells stated that the court would find that it appears that the detection made was a false-positive. The defendant (much like a case I helped in a few years ago) was exposed to haircare products while working in a hair salon. The defense relied on witnesses that testified they didn't see her drink and she didn't appear to be under the influence.
Hawthorne (inventor of SCRAM) testified that an alert could have been issued even if the client did not drink, then mentioned the list of "BANNED PRODUCTS" wearers are given to avoid false alerts. The rebuttal stated that "... the judge did not hear evidence to explain the difference between an environmental exposure to hairspray and actual consumption, resulting in confusion in the ruling and reports about the case." Really? Witnesses and the inventor testifying in open court that the banned products can produce an alert trumps the ridiculous notion that one can prove consumption by a read (especially if the standard is as it was years ago, topping out at .08) that is obfuscated at the get go.
CEO Mike Iiams says that alcohol-containing products like hairspray will oftentimes generate an alert, but that the SCRAM System can easily distinguish between exposure to environmental alcohol and actual consumption. Easily? If physiologists weren't so expensive! I wonder if Iiams is in full belief of this, he stated on a news cast here in Detroit we were in that some 1 in 1000 reads are false-positives. I had three on two bracelets, the famous Glaza case 3 on two bracelets and not to mention the hundreds that have contacted me over the years. I know Bayes Rule, a few of them probably were guilty, but without Constitutional procedures Iiams, I and the courts will never know.
Let us resolve to be masters, not the victims, of our history, controlling our own destiny without giving way to blind suspicions and emotions.-John F. Kennedy
Referrence:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS165789+15-Sep-2009+PRN20090915
http://www.nwfdailynews.com/news/release-20500-defuniak-springs.html
posted by marcellus91872 at 1:22 AM
12 comments
