Scram Program Participant Agreement

October 6th, 2021

At the hearing, people called Amanda Spears, an employee of Rocky Mountain Opender Monitoring Systems (RMOMS), the agency responsible for purchasing, installing and monitoring the SCRAM bracelet and explained her terms of use to the accused {**29 Misc 3d at 1168}. She testified that, pursuant to her pleading agreement, she met with the accused on 21 April 2008 and provided him with a SCRAM bracelet. At that meeting, the defendant was informed of the requirements of the programme and received specific instructions for the maintenance of the bracelet. [FN2] Ms Spears discussed the prohibitions on obstruction and manipulation, explained the SCRAM agreement and customer policy, asked the defendant to initialise each section, and provided the defendant with a copy of each document. In another study, AMS conducted a study on 10 people over 30 days old. Participants agreed to wear the SCRAM device during their normal activity, but had to record all alcoholic beverages consumed. AMS then compared its data to the recorded protocols that the participants prepared. Hawthorne said AMS could only identify 30 percent of participants who reported taking one drink, 41 percent of participants who reported two drinks at the same time, 65 percent of participants who reported three drinks, 90 percent of participants who reported taking four or five drinks, and 100 percent of participants who reported six or more drinks. {**29 Miscellaneous 3d to 1175} Is SCRAM technology reliable enough to meet the Frye test of admissibility of scientific evidence in New York State? [FN1] If so, in this case, are the persons charged with the burden of proof that the accused deliberately obstructed the SCRAM apparatus in breach of his pleading agreement? He stated that he had verified the data obtained by the defendant`s SCRAM bracelet for May 11 and found that the defendant`s SCRAM bracelet was not able to detect the defendant`s transdermal alcohol concentration (TAC) from 8:12 a.m. .m. until 6:21 p.m..m., a period of 10 hours and 9 minutes.

During this period, the SCRAM device showed a measured value of 2.067 volts above the authorized program range, suggesting an obstruction between the infrared signal of the SCRAM device and the defendant`s skin. AMS considered this to be an offence and wrote a report. The defendant`s early morning alcohol concentration levels from 2 a.m. .m to 4 a.m.m, indicated a slight increase in the defendant`s TAC. As this increase did not exceed 0.02%, it was not considered [*3] a violation of the SCRAM program. [FN3] {**29 Miscellaneous 3d to 1169} The people introduced six documents as evidence: the scram agreement of the participants in the program (SCRAM) of the accused, the client policy of the RMOMS SCRAM program, a scientific study entitled Validy of Transdermal Alcohol Monitoring: Fixed and Self-Regulated Dosing by Joseph T. . . .

Alice Major is proudly powered by WordPress | Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS)