Q: Scram monitor forced when crime did not involve alcohol related stuff nor have I ever had any crime when alcohol involve

A: Sometimes, the Judges don't understand and order things we don't feel are required of our clients.

I would normally just tell my client, especially if they don't drink or do drugs, to leave it on because it will generate a good report to the judge when they go back. I also know they can be cumbersome, so many clients prefer not to have them. In that case, I would try to negotiate with the prosecutor and alternative based on the fact that alcohol and or drugs were not at issue in the case.

.

A: Based on the information you provided, it seems that you are concerned about the legality of being required to wear a SCRAM (Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitor) device under California law, even though your crime did not involve alcohol and you have no prior alcohol-related offenses.

In California, judges have the discretion to impose various conditions of probation or parole, including the use of a SCRAM device, if they believe it is necessary for public safety or the rehabilitation of the offender. However, the conditions imposed should be reasonably related to the crime committed and the offender's circumstances.

If you believe that the requirement to wear a SCRAM device is not justified given the nature of your offense and your lack of prior alcohol-related crimes, you may want to discuss this with your attorney. Your attorney can assess your case and potentially challenge the condition in court or negotiate with the prosecutor or probation officer to have the requirement removed or modified.

It is important to note that while the court has discretion in imposing conditions, those conditions should be reasonable and relevant to the specific case. If you feel that the SCRAM requirement is unjustified, you have the right to challenge it through the proper legal channels.