Lawsuits involving the SCRAM bracelet fall into three groups: product liability class actions alleging the ankle device causes skin wounds and infections, consumer fraud suits claiming the technology produces false-positive alcohol readings that trigger extra fees and extended monitoring, and constitutional cases over whether courts can jail defendants who cannot afford to pay for the device. The manufacturer, Alcohol Monitoring Systems, Inc., doing business as SCRAM Systems, is based in Littleton, Colorado, and has been selling the devices to courts and probation agencies since 1997.
Injury Lawsuits Against the Manufacturer
Two proposed class actions filed in federal court in Colorado accuse SCRAM Systems of selling a device that physically injures the people court-ordered to wear it.
In August 2023, Joseph Terrell Nelson Jr. sued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, alleging the SCRAM CAM device was negligently designed and damaged his skin. Nelson said he developed pain in his left ankle after four months of wear, and a medical provider diagnosed a deep open wound, cellulitis, dermatitis, and a bacterial infection. When the device was moved to his right ankle, he alleged, the same reaction appeared within days. The complaint, Nelson v. Alcohol Monitoring Systems, Inc. (No. 1:23-cv-02194), sought damages and an injunction requiring the company to make the devices reasonably safe.1Law360. Ankle Monitor Maker Hit With Suit Over Rashes, Infections2CourtListener. Nelson v. Alcohol Monitoring Systems, Inc.
SCRAM Systems moved to dismiss, arguing Nelson had not described the alleged defect, his medical condition, or his own handling of the device in enough detail.3Law360. Alcohol Bracelet Injury Suit Not Detailed Enough, Co. Says Nelson amended the complaint in October 2023. The parties then reached a confidential settlement, filing a notice of settlement on January 16, 2024, and the case was dismissed with prejudice on February 15, 2024, with each side bearing its own fees and costs. The settlement terms were not disclosed.4ClassAction.org. Nelson v. Alcohol Monitoring Systems, Inc., Notice of Settlement
A second injury class action, Portis v. Alcohol Monitoring Systems, Inc. (No. 1:25-cv-2697), was filed in August 2025. The lead plaintiff said he was hospitalized in November 2023 for “acute on chronic pressure injuries to his legs” caused by the ankle monitor rubbing his skin. According to the complaint, he had no pre-existing conditions, was medically restricted from working for several days, and was warned that continued use risked systemic infection and potentially irreparable damage. The suit calls the devices “defective and unsafe for use” because their design requires prolonged skin contact, and it seeks to represent anyone in the United States who was sentenced to wear a SCRAM device and later sustained injuries. As of late 2025, the case remained in its initial filing stage with no rulings entered.5ClassAction.org. SCRAM Lawsuit Claims Ankle Monitors Can Seriously Injure Wearers
False-Positive and Consumer Fraud Claims
A separate suit targeted the accuracy of the technology itself. In February 2017, Roseanne Hansen and Jennifer Oh filed a proposed class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Hansen v. Scram of California, Inc. (No. 2:17-cv-01474). The complaint alleged the devices produce false positives from everyday products such as body spray, cologne, hand sanitizer, and household cleaners, and characterized the arrangement as a “money-making scheme” because false violation reports led courts to extend monitoring periods and impose added fees. Hansen said she paid $6,400 in monitoring costs, $300 for a urine test, and $2,000 in attorney fees. The suit invoked California consumer protection statutes and common-law fraud and asserted total damages exceeding $5 million under the Class Action Fairness Act.6Courthouse News Service. Hansen v. Scram of California, Inc., Class Action Complaint
Judge Christina Snyder dismissed the second amended complaint in September 2017, finding the plaintiffs had not shown how SCRAM misrepresented its products, who made the alleged false representations, or when and how the falsehoods were communicated.7DMS Program. Case Dismissed: SCRAM Developers Alleged False Advertising The plaintiffs were given 21 days to amend, but instead filed a voluntary dismissal without prejudice on September 26, 2017.8PlainSite. Roseanne Hansen et al v. Scram of California, Inc.
Why False Readings Happen
The SCRAM bracelet uses an electrochemical fuel cell to detect alcohol excreted through the skin in what scientists call “insensible perspiration,” the roughly one percent of consumed alcohol that passes through the skin as vapor. The device samples every 30 minutes and transmits data to a central database.9SCRAM Systems. SCRAM Continuous Alcohol Monitoring SCRAM Systems reports a 99 percent rate of “sober days” across more than five billion alcohol tests.
Independent research complicates that picture. A peer-reviewed systematic review found that although transdermal and blood alcohol readings generally correlate, SCRAM peak readings can lag behind actual blood alcohol peaks by roughly 69 minutes to as much as four and a half hours. The device is designed as a qualitative screening tool, detecting whether someone drank rather than precisely how much.10National Library of Medicine. Transdermal Alcohol Monitoring Systematic Review11SCRAM Systems. SCRAM CAM Primer
Documented sources of interference include hand sanitizer, perfume, shaving cream, mouthwash, cough syrup, household cleaners, and the ambient atmosphere in bars, bakeries, and hair salons. Moisture condensation inside the device can damage internal components and skew readings; the manufacturer’s own patents acknowledge that water accumulation can reduce device sensitivity and service life. Individual physiology also matters, because hydration, skin temperature, body chemistry, and skin thickness all affect how alcohol passes through the skin, meaning two people who drank the same amount can produce different readings.12UC Berkeley School of Law. Challenging SCRAM Continuous Alcohol Monitor Evidence as Unreliable and Insufficient
Being Jailed for Not Paying: People v. Hakes
The leading ruling on whether a court can force a defendant to pay for SCRAM comes from New York. In People v. Hakes (2018), the Court of Appeals considered Brian Hakes, who had pleaded guilty to felony driving while intoxicated and was sentenced to five years of probation with a SCRAM condition costing about $11 per day, around $18,000 over the full term. After a hand injury left him unable to work, he stopped paying, the monitoring company removed the device, and the trial court revoked his probation and sentenced him to one to three years in prison.13Fines and Fees Justice Center. People v. Hakes
The Court of Appeals held that sentencing courts do have statutory authority to require a defendant to wear and pay for SCRAM as a probation condition, reasoning that payment is “part and parcel” of the condition. The court drew a line, though: if a defendant shows an inability to pay despite genuine effort, the court must hold an ability-to-pay hearing and attempt to fashion a reasonable alternative to incarceration. Imprisoning someone solely because they cannot afford the device is prohibited.14FindLaw. People v. Hakes, No. 139
Legal scholars have raised additional constitutional arguments against the devices, including Fourth Amendment claims around continuous 24-hour monitoring of body chemistry, equal protection arguments that the infrared tamper-detection sensors may be affected by skin tone, and due process challenges to the reliability of evidence used at probation hearings, where evidentiary standards are often relaxed.
Challenging a SCRAM Violation in Court
If you are facing a probation sanction based on a SCRAM reading, courts have generally admitted the data as evidence, but the readings can be contested on the facts of a specific case. SCRAM evidence has survived scrutiny in more than 35 Daubert and Frye hearings across 30 states; the only unfavorable admissibility ruling identified in the literature came in 2004 in State of Michigan v. Glaza, when the court found insufficient peer-reviewed research. In State v. Lemler (South Dakota, 2009), the state Supreme Court held that the possibility of environmental interference is a factual question for the trier of fact, not grounds to exclude the evidence.15Civic Research Institute. SCRAM CAM Admissibility12UC Berkeley School of Law. Challenging SCRAM Continuous Alcohol Monitor Evidence as Unreliable and Insufficient
The UC Berkeley Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic runs a project for defense attorneys challenging SCRAM evidence. Its recommended approach is to demand discovery of calibration records, device version, and raw data graphs, then argue that the device failed under the specific circumstances of the client’s case rather than attacking the technology as a whole. Defense experts have successfully challenged readings by identifying “saw-toothed” graph patterns inconsistent with actual alcohol consumption, and in People v. Carrillo (2017), a court found the prosecution had failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant consumed alcohol based on such patterns.16UC Berkeley School of Law. Challenging SCRAM Bracelets
Fees, Collections Suits, and Cook County
Separately from the class actions against the manufacturer, defendants have been sued by local monitoring vendors to collect unpaid fees. An investigative series by Injustice Watch titled “Surveilling Sobriety” documented the pattern in Cook County, Illinois. The private vendor, CAM Systems, continued operating and billing defendants for more than a year after its contract with the county expired in January 2021, with judges assigning devices to more than 200 defendants during that period despite no active contract governing data privacy, program standards, or accountability.17Injustice Watch. SCRAM Vendor Continues to Operate Despite Lapsed Contract With Cook County
Cook County defendants were charged between $12.40 and $24.40 per day, potentially more than $730 per month, with added fees of $170 for installation, removal, and maintenance and $110 for each alleged violation. The county paid none of those costs.18Injustice Watch. Judge Vazquez’s Heavy Use of Sobriety Monitor Highlights Oversight Gaps Between August 2020 and June 2021, CAM Systems sued at least 40 people in Cook County to recover unpaid monitoring fees, seeking more than $165,000 in total, and had billed defendants more than $3 million for the monitors overall according to the investigation.19Injustice Watch. Surveilling Sobriety The reporting prompted a Cook County Board hearing in September 2022 and ultimately state legislation signed by the governor in 2023 that limits judges’ ability to order alcohol monitoring.20Chicago Appleseed Center for Fair Courts. Cook County Board of Commissioners Testimony Against Electronic Surveillance
One structural issue flagged across these cases: SCRAM devices are not classified as medical devices and are not subject to the testing, approval, and oversight applied to other body-worn technologies such as hearing aids or prosthetics.18Injustice Watch. Judge Vazquez’s Heavy Use of Sobriety Monitor Highlights Oversight Gaps
Who Makes the Device
SCRAM Systems was founded in 1997 as Alcohol Monitoring Systems, Inc., and rebranded in 2013. The company is headquartered in Littleton, Colorado, and sells its devices to courts, probation departments, and parole services in the United States and internationally. It reports that its devices have been used to monitor more than one million individuals, and that over three-quarters of its clients pay for some or all of their own monitoring costs.21SCRAM Systems. About Us22SCRAM Systems. Implementing an Affordable Alcohol Monitoring Program In April 2021, private equity firm The Riverside Company acquired SCRAM Systems and merged it with ignition-interlock provider LifeSafer.23The Riverside Company. Riverside Acquires Leading Provider of Electronic Monitoring Solutions