By Gracy Joslin
WOODLAND, CA – At an arraignment hearing this week in Yolo County Superior Court, an alleged DUI driver was denied a request to avoid being placed on SCRAM, an alcohol monitoring ankle bracelet device which his defense attorney referred to as “expensive” and “unnecessary.”
Back in 2019, prior to this current case, the driver was convicted of a DUI (driving under the influence) in San Mateo County.
Fast forward to this recent arraignment appearance—in November he was charged with two misdemeanors for having an excessive BAC level and driving under the influence.
The deputy district attorney said the driver’s BAC this time was 23.26 percent, about three times the limit, and was “blocking the reporting party’s vehicle at the Quik Stop. He was passed out behind the wheel, the car was running and in drive. When he was woken up it started to move forward.”
Due to the public safety concern presented, the prosecution asked Judge David Reed to release him under supervision until his pending trial, including a requirement to wear a SCRAM device.
But the defense argued that this is “a second DUI. Not a fourth not a fifth” yet acknowledged a no alcohol clause is “reasonable” but SCRAM, on the other hand, is not necessary as he “is a young kid. He works hard. I think he knows he needs to do better.”
Judge Reed noted that the argument is invalid because being placed on supervised OR will have no cost.
He granted the prosecution request to place the defendant on supervised release, with the conditions of no alcohol consumption and a SCRAM device.
Upon conclusion of the hearing, Judge Reed noted the driver must report to the probation office immediately, adding, “I am very concerned with what I heard. If he is passed out with a car in gear, even if he is in a parking lot, it is a huge public safety issue.”