The patented SCRAM ankle bracelet - the heart of the SCRAM system - is attached to the offender with a durable and tamper-proof strap. It is worn 24/7 by the offender for the duration of his or her court-ordered abstinence period (typically 90-120 days).
Twice an hour, the bracelet captures transdermal alcohol readings by sampling the insensible perspiration collected from the air above the skin. The bracelet stores the data and, at pre-determined intervals, transmits it via a wireless radio-frequency (RF) signal to the SCRAM modem.
When an offender is convicted of DUI, domestic violence, or another alcohol-related offense, a typical condition of sentencing or probation is that the individual must stop drinking. To enforce this, courts have traditionally looked to random testing methods (blood, breath, or urine) that measure sobriety at a specific "point in time."
However, one of the more recent advances in alcohol testing is continuous transdermal alcohol monitoring, which means that alcohol is measured "through the skin." Transdermal testing measures the concentration of alcohol present in the insensible perspiration that is constantly produced and given off by the skin. If an offender has been drinking, it shows up in the level of ethanol vapor present in this insensible perspiration.
While transdermal testing cannot determine exact blood alcohol concentration (BAC) levels, it can qualitatively determine whether a person drank a little, a moderate, or a large quantity of alcohol (transdermal alcohol content or TAC). TAC results correlate well with BAC results. However, because of the way alcohol is absorbed and processed by the body, TAC peaks typically are reached 30 minutes to two hours after BAC peaks.
Continuous transdermal alcohol monitoring - the foundation of SCRAM - has been confirmed by the scientific community, based on more than 70 years of research and 22 peer-reviewed studies. It is becoming an increasingly accepted and integral part of offender alcohol monitoring programs within courts, probation, treatment, and correctional agencies. Transdermal monitoring has also been accepted in evidentiary hearings, and has been admissible in many court cases across the country.
After much study, it seems that you may have no luck "Fooling" the bracket and sensor..
It seems you would have to concentrate on fooling the minds of men...
You would concentrate on a phrase like this.
It is becoming an increasingly accepted and integral part of offender alcohol monitoring programs within courts, probation, treatment, and correctional agencies. Transdermal monitoring has also been accepted in evidentiary hearings, and has been admissible in many court cases across the country.
You would need a lawyer in advance that could challenge the reliability of the device, the reporting, or the people that interpret the data that is sent.
Perhaps the fact that you are not confronted by your accuser which is the expert on the other end of the mode who anaaylizes the data.
How the Typical SCRAM
Case Causes Science and Law to Collide
Aside from the apparent reliability problems
discussed above, the very processes involved
in the monitoring and confirmation of a drinking
episode by the manufacturer requires a significant
delay between the "confirmation" of a drinking
episode and the actual notification of this
"confirmation" to the offender. This systematic
problem with SCRAM is exacerbated by the
physiological delay in the expression of the alcohol
through the skin. Scientific literature has shown
DWI JOURNAL: Law & Science - April 2006 - Page 4
Copyright 2006 Whitaker Newsletters Inc., 241, Burtonsville, MDNNN-NN-NNNN All Rights Reserved.
that this delay might be as much as 120 minutes2,
while the manufacturer claims that this delay
might be as much as 180 minutes3.
A third source of delay may be termed
"judicial" delay, which is the delay that occurs between
the notification of a Confirmed Event by the
manufacturer and the subsequent notice to the offender
by the monitoring agency. These delays
create an almost certain violation of the offender's
constitutional rights because they effectively preclude
the offender from any opportunity to seek
and obtain potentially exculpatory evidence in the
form of an independent test. Independent testing
is particularly crucial where, as here, recent scientific
research suggests that the data and processes
used to "confirm" drinking are respectively both
unreliable and subjective4.
See the full document here..