< Back to Attorney's Profile
SCRAM
By Jon J. Saia (Adams County, Allen County, Ashland County, Ashtabula County, Athens County, Auglaize County, Belmont County, Brown County, Butler County, Carroll County, Champaign County, Clark County, Clermont County, Clinton County, Columbiana County, Coshocton County, Crawford County, Cuyahoga County, Darke County, Defiance County, Erie County, Franklin County, Fulton County, Gallia County, Geauga County, Guernsey County, Hamilton County, Hancock County, Hardin County, Harrison County, Henry County, Highland County, Hocking County, Holmes County, Huron County, Jackson County, Jefferson County, Lake County, Lawrence County, Logan County, Lorain County, Lucas County, Madison County, Mahoning County, Medina County, Meigs County, Mercer County, Miami County, Monroe County, Morgan County, Muskingum County, Noble County, Ottawa County, Paulding County, Perry County, Pike County, Portage County, Preble County, Putnam County, Richland County, Ross County, Sandusky County, Scioto County, Seneca County, Stark County, Summit County, Trumbull County, Tuscarawas County, Union County, Van Wert County, Vinton County, Warren County, Washington County, Wayne County, Williams County, Wood County, Wyandot County)
At a cost of nearly $1,600 per unit and with daily monitoring fees ranging from $12-$20/day (sliding scale), they are not cheap. SCRAM, or Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitoring devices, are relatively new, but growing in use and popularity for post-conviction alcohol consumption monitoring as part of a treatment program.
The Franklin County Municipal Court is the first Court in Ohio to utilize SCRAM and currently has 50 SCRAM units, with approximately 25 systems in use. Since March 2005, the probation department reports approximately 48 people have been hooked-up to SCRAM for monitoring and that 3 cases have been reported for alcohol use and probation revocation proceedings.
The SCRAM system consists of 2 primary components–a somewhat bulky/cumbersome ankle monitoring bracelet worn continuously and the SCRAM modem which downloads the data stored by the bracelet and transfers the information to the host (Alcohol Monitoring Systems) agency for monitoring and reporting to the probation department.
According to the manufacturer (AMS), SCRAM is designed to monitor the user’s alcohol consumption, intake, and levels, if any, by “transdermal analysis”. According to AMS, “[w]hen we consume alcohol, ethanol migrates through the skin, unmetabolized, and is excreted in Insensible Perspiration, defined as the constant, unnoticeable excretion of sweat through the skin.” SCRAM is designed to measure/test that sweat for alcohol “around the clock”. For more information about SCRAM and how it works, visit www.alcoholmonitoring.com
In Ohio, unlike some other states, SCRAM is only used for post-conviction monitoring as part of a comprehensive alcohol treatment program in conjunction with community control/probation. In Franklin County Municipal Court, according to Carl Keenan of the probation department, the device is only used for offenders with alcohol related problems, who are typically multiple offenders. The device is usually worn for 90–180 days of continuous (24/7) monitoring.
Keenan, who also has a background in therapy, does not see the device as punitive. He reports that users of SCRAM have even thanked him, crediting the device for helping them to stay sober while on probation, used in conjunction with a comprehensive alcohol treatment program. Practitioners that handle alcohol related cases, including OVI’s, should become familiar with the SCRAM system. It appears to be on the upswing in terms of use and popularity among judges ordering it for multiple offenders, particularly as the Court and probation department become more familiar and comfortable with SCRAM.
This device and its use provide practitioners with an opportunity to explore sentences avoiding potential jail terms for their clients. With the cooperation of the judge, prosecutor, and probation department, allowing clients the opportunity to engage in a treatment program outside of jail, abstaining from the use of alcohol and correcting the problem behavior, can be a win-win-win for the client, court system (public), and prosecutor alike.
So, is SCRAM as good as it sounds? The manufacturer would have you believe so, but, they also appear to be the only one in the scientific community to have tested (or funded testing of) the system. Accordingly, many remain skeptical of the system, particularly since so little is known at this point about AMS’s alcohol analysis methods which are based on “undisclosed proprietary evaluation methods, as well as technology that is inherently inferior to breath testing or a blood alcohol screen”. DWI Journal: Law & Science, Volume 21, No. 4 (April 2006), “Justice Delayed is Justice Denied: Due Process Violations in SCRAM Cases”.
For those wanting to know more about this issue, in addition to the above-referenced article, practitioners are encouraged to review an article published in the Michigan Bar Journal, June 2006: The SCRAM Tether. Among the conclusions reached in this article, which discusses the scientific reliability of SCRAM and its accuracy, it is pointed out that “[t]he SCRAM tether fails to meet the requirements of Daubert as scientific evidence–it has not been sufficiently peer reviewed, is not generally accepted, and has proven unreliable.” The article goes on to state, citing a Michigan case, that “there is simply too great an analytical gap between the data and the opinion proffered.”
Keenan would disagree, believing in SCRAM’s reliability and calling it the “best thing he has seen in probation and treatment in a long time.” Nonetheless, it is predictable that as SCRAM’s use becomes more widespread, that violations will also increase, thereby making these issues of increasing concern to practitioners addressing allegations of violations for revocation. While SCRAM and the rationale for its use may be well-intentioned, and there may be positive outcome from its use, nobody wants its users being sent to jail for violations based on false readings or errors, and significant questions remain about the devices scientific basis and its reliability/accuracy (including false positives or ‘interference’ as referred to by the manufacturer).
This text may not be reused or
republished without permission of its author. All rights reserved.
|
