SCRAM is a "secure continuous remote Alcohol monitoring" system that allegedly samples offenders sweat on a regular basis. Has anyone tried this system, and if so what are the perks and pitfalls?

Very expensive.

We were very enthusiastic at first, but the contract was recently terminated and I am not sure why. We had complaints regarding the costs and problems getting working monitors. Also, I had a bond hearing where the device was required as a condition of release and the defense objected to the results of the monitor being admitted through the CSO. The judge allowed the evidence, but that may not always be the case. Has anyone ever had to prove up the technology or reports generated by the device?

We do use the SCRAM device in Parker County. It is mainly used as a probation condition and not as a condition of bond. In terms of proving it up--as a condition of any plea the Defendant and their counsel have to sign the following stipulation:

STIPULATION RELATING TO ADMISSIBILITY OF
SECURE CONTINUOUS REMOTE ALCOHOL MONITOR


COME NOW the State of Texas, by and through her undersigned Assistant District Attorney, and the Defendant, XXXXXXXXXX, both personally and as represented by the counsel of her choosing, XXXXXXXXXX, and present this Stipulation Relating to Admissibility of Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitor as follows:

1. Both parties agree that for expert testimony to be valid, that Texas Rule of Evidence 702 requires that three prerequisites be met:
a. the witness must be qualified;
b. the proposed testimony must be grounded in scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge; and
c. the testimony must assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence admitted at trial or determining a fact in issue.

2. With respect to the first component, that the witness must be qualified, both parties stipulate and agree that the director of the Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitor (SCRAM) program is a qualified witness to present expert testimony relating to said program and not to object to evidence of the SCRAM program on this basis.

3. With respect to the third component, that the testimony must assist the trier of fact, both parties stipulate and agree that said testimony would assist the trier of fact in determining a fact at issue, namely whether the Defendant has engaged in the use of alcohol in violation of his conditions of community supervision and do not object to evidence on the SCRAM program on this basis.

4. With respect to the second component, that the proposed testimony must be grounded in scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge, the parties stipulate and agree that for such evidence to be admissible a showing by clear and convincing evidence must be met that:

a. The underlying scientific theory is valid;
b. The technique applying the theory is valid; and
c. The technique was properly applied on the occasion in question.

5. Both parties stipulate and agree that the underlying scientific theory of the SCRAM Program has been proven by clear and convincing evidence and do not object to admissibility of the SCRAM program on this basis.

6. Both parties stipulate and agree that the technique applying the underlying scientific theory of the SCRAM program has been proven by clear and convincing evidence and do not object to admissibility of the SCRAM Program on this basis.

7. The parties have not reached an agreement as to whether or not the technique applying the underlying theory of the SCRAM program was applied properly on any occasion in question. The parties agree that the State of Texas must present proof by clear and convincing evidence on this element.

8. The parties have reached an agreement that this stipulation shall be admissible and binding upon the parties in all future proceedings, including, but not limited to, administrative reviews, motions to revoke, motions to adjudicate, appeals, writs, and all other legal proceedings in this cause.

Signed on December 4, 2007.


______________________________
XXXXXXXXXX, Attorney for Defendant


______________________________
Defendant XXXXXXXXX


______________________________
Robert S. DuBoise
Assistant District Attorney

Approved by the Court on December 4, 2007.


__________________________
PRESIDING JUDGE

A very interesting stipulation. How has it worked?

One of our local judges has been requiring this on all felony DWI's as a condition of probation. We have not had a plea with SCRAM go through yet.

So far, it's worked great. We haven't had a contested MTR hearing yet though, so our stipulation hasn't really been tested to date. Our program has seemed to go pretty well. For those interested, I think our cost is $12 per day, so it is expensive. However, if that's the only difference between a judge giving probation or putting the defendant in prison, I would think that most defendants would find a way to foot the bill.

I did some research on this very issue not to long ago for my county and I learned that some foods (e.g., chocolate donuts, certain types of breads) can produce endogenous (internally produced) alcohol. In addition, certain medical conditions, such as diabetes, can also result in the internal production of alcohol. There are many substances containing alcohol (e.g., perfume, hand sanitizers) that can act as environmental interferants and produce a positive alcohol reading.

For a very interesting article that explains exactly how SCRAM works and some of the research about SCRAM, complete with pictures and easy to understand explanation, check out this link: http://www.trafficinjuryresearch.com/publications/PDF_publications/CTAM_Primer_Booklet.pdf

For those who like Power Points, here are some preliminary findings from an NHTSA study which found some important problems with this technology: http://www.nlectc.org/training/commcorr2005/marques_comcorr2005_transdermal.pdf

What county is that, Hoover?

[This message was edited by JB on 01-29-08 at .]

Judge, I hadn't been drinking, I just like to have really clean, sweet smelling ankles!

RTC you amaze me that you got that message out of the materials. The most common issue identified was not the defense crap that was tossed at Intoxilizers, but rather that like any technology the scientist found lots of bad guys went undetected.

Of course any number of false positives is problematic, but the most common error, like with every alcohol mesurement system, was under reporting. It is amazing how many civil libratatians can read the study and miss the main point.

Rex,

I've worn one for a while as part of research project. We should talk......

check your "private conversations" for my specific contact information.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JB:
What county is that, Hoover?

[This message was edited by JB on 01-29-08 at .]

---

If Grassy Knoll is a prosecutor in this Great State, even a part time municipal prosecutor who works one night a year (not that there is anything wrong with that), I'll buy you dinner at your choice of fine dining establishments in Galveston.

We have one in place as a bond condition in a particularly egregious case and it is working out well. There has been one false positive which was attributed to a chemical with which the defendant was working. Our probation officer handling that has a great deal of information on the sytem. So far, the only difficulty is the cost to the wearer(s).

Occasionally I get to meet folks that are truely national caliber experts. Steve is one. He was a prosecutor in Miami (Florida not Texas) and remains a heck of a good speaker and trainer. He can also provide data, scientist, and technical and legal answers on SCRAM.

Here is his note to me. And I do highly reccomend him.

(from Steve Taupins)

First, I appreciate your reply to the ridiculous argument that foods can cause elevated BACs (can you believe that the judge in Michigan bought that crap?).

Anyway, can you let these guys know that I'm available (and that I'm a legit guy) if they have any questions and that I've got a lot of research materials, case law, etc on this (we've won a bunch of Frye/Daubert hearings in other states).

Thanks!

PS---they can call me at 305-610-3585 (cell) or e mail me here or at stalpins@alcoholmonitoring.com

I'm gonna keep this info on file. You never know when this issue might come up on an MRP and it's good to have a source for these types of questions so handy.

I'll add this stuff to the rest of the info I've filed under "tips from Clay" acquired at baby prosecutor school as my substitute FA.

I am interested in knowing if you were able to defeat the device.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Forensicscientist:
Rex,

I've worn one for a while as part of research project. We should talk......

check your "private conversations" for my specific contact information.

---

Does anyone know under what circumstances a SCRAM devise wouel stop transmitting for 6-8 hours then restart? My understanding is if you tamper with the device by placeing a foreign object between it and you skin the reflected infrared signal will increase not stop transmitting??

Any help or responce wouel be greatly appreciated.