Not open for further replies.


New Member
Secure Contiuous Remote Alcohol Monitors(SCRAM) are a relatively new and effective monitor and are used in nearly 30 states.Unfortunately,the testing of the system seems to be under some scrutiny,for their has only been one published test specifically on SCRAM and was paid for solely by the proprietor Alcohol Monitoring Systems(AMS).The research done by J. Robert Zettl in my findings,seems to cover transdermal alcohol consentration(TAC) from a clinical view,refering to other studies(1985,Daniel J Brown the first published study on TAC curves and their relation to BAC curves*not outside influences) like August 1992 Robert Swift wrote"Studies on a Wearable, Electronic, Transdermal Alcohol Sensor," Swift wrote, "In the intoxicated alcohol subjects, the TAS curve was of similar amplitude and shape to the BAC curve, but lagged up to 120 min behind the BAC curve."The term similar has neither credibility in a court nor a place in science for it renders the theory from exact science to hypothesis.These studies are on the topic but are not specificly on SCRAM nor was it related to AMS and note the research quoted by AMS,
does not reflect outside influences.The SCRAM unit is armed with the ability to detect the source of alcohol in some cases due to the fact the alcohol level jumps and fall rapidly creating what I believe was called"spikes"in the reading.Unfortunately,if the source is significant the diffusion,retarded by being trapped in the ankle bracelet,can produce a TAS curve similar to that of a BAC curve resulting in immediate action of the court(*PEOPLE vs. Joseph,40th District MI.,8/16/05 ).The attorney was well armed with 15 hours of credible witness testimony,detailed receipts from the time of the allegations,and the printed documents that led to the allegations which clearly showed the"spikes"from an alternative source.Benefit of the doubt was granted but without the witness testimony and witty attorney the case would have been ruled through the testimony of the represenative of H.A.S. and AMS who claimed the reading was indicative to consumption.
Apparently this was not the only case in Michigan to question the reliability of SCRAM or AMS,
In the article above Dr. Michael Hlastala,physiologist from the University of Washington,offers yet another possibility for a false positive reading,the converting of foods to alcohol inside the body.I have since found no such research by AMS or other influence,but will continue my sometimes relentless effort.
SCRAM bracelets are armed with a device to detect interference,for instance a probationer may use a playing card to obstruct the bracelet for delinquent purposes.In my dilligence I have found very little testing on this aspect of the device,which again leaves questions unanswered.Could the wearer unconsciously obstruct, could it be the edge of a sock,thin pair of pants,or sheet?Could an obstruction be the result of a string from a frayed towel or even a slightly significant piece of lint?Occording to AMS,an obstruction isn't reported until it occurs for a period of 6 hours in at which time alcohol could still be detected,but if this were to occur in the early period of dormancy the time could easily exceed the controlled measure.Without alcohol being detected at the time of the obstruction, it is circumstancial evidence at best,more like hear-say but this doesn't cease the courts from prosecuting on this evidence,although further testing of SCRAM could warrant a cease and desist order from superior officials.
I am currently researching more on TAC,SCRAM,and their relationship for purposes of publication and find it interesting that the results thus far are less than awesome but have been so constructive.Media groups,defense teams,and actual officers seem to have the same enquiries,but due to lack of funds researh is limited and results are subject to scrutiny for these are only two examples of an undetermined amount of allegations and convictions.In a firm belief that the convictions were a direct result of a violation,rather than lack of direct evidence,the courts will not be able to recognize the fallibilities of SCRAM or evaluate the method of use.Advanced Tomography could possibly be used to defend a probationer but locating a qualified technician and covering the cost are just the first difficulties one might encounter during the investgative procedure,reducing the theory to possibility.Immediate toxicological testing could possibly be a defense(metabolites last up to 4 days),but the probationer is not notified immediately,and if a weekend should intervene it could be up to 5 days before the person/persons are notified.
In an effort to produce more testing,clinical and non-clinical,I provide this research,results, alternative procedures for use and defense as a base study to hopefully generate interest and qualified, independant testing to secure the liberty of the hundreds (thousands?) of people who face the loss of by being falsely accused of consumption while on bond and/or probation.Any information regarding the posted subjects or more studies/results (especially tomography for we could possibly exonerate the recently convicted and clear innocent victims of SCRAM) would be appreciated,published only with consent(already published information is subject to republishment for credibility and scrutiny of the reader),and accepted at;
I leave you with one more enquiry,why was it harder for DNA to be admitted in the courts than a ridiculous,hardly proven notion that TAC is infallibly,directly related to BAC, and neither the device used to measure it nor the humans operating the device are subject to error?

I've left this article here since it is a biological technology used in law enforcement and I also put the other article in the "drugs and alcohol" section. This is an incredible new monitoring device and I've posted a couple of thoughts in that forum with regard to the issue. If you'd like to summarize your thoughts and put them into a publishable quality editorial, we'd be glad to publish it on our site. We have increased the legal e-zine area and this might be a good letter to the editor type article in our legal journal,, which should be up and running this weekend. It's an incredibly important issue that raises a whole host of legal and ethical issues that need to be discussed and analyzed.
Jeffrey Hawthorne's (inventor of SCRAM) testimony, and I've seen it in an article advertising SCRAM:
There are Virtually no false-positives..........

Now lets look at the subjects tested in AMS's "tamper-proof white-paper", all 10, a seven day study two of which no testing was performed. Ten subjects in 5 days and there were nearly no false-positives. Quote- "This low-level reading occurred because the test subject worked in an area where alcohol was used to clean circuitry components. Except for this anomaly,..." Today there are at least 2000 people being tested 7 days a week (up to 48 times a day). Still no peer reviewed literature that deems the device reliable, and no further research has been found on the obstruction device.
A judge from Michigan has recently published an article on a case where there were 3 proven false-positives on one client, and this was with at least two different bracelets so this was not a malfunction. Again using the device in compliance with the Sixth Amendment may remedy some of the Daubert issues, or render the device useless.
Please go to and search for scram lawsuit add your comments and read our notes. I am looking at going to prison for not drinking, pretty amazing. Our 6th amendment rights are being smashed and its time that AMS is stopped. I was not drinking, hadnt been drinking, I a being accused and yet I was at work with employees to verify, can pass a polygraph which I am in the process of doing now. If you or someone you know has been accused or is in jail NOW due to this faulty piece of electronics please contact us, united we stand, divided we fall.
Not open for further replies.