For the Defense - Vol. 5, Issue 3 - 27

report. After what appeared to be some internal
discussion, I was told that they would not provide the
report.
Based on Probation's denial of our request for the
report, Ms. Manzi filed a Motion to Dismiss based on
Probation's failure to provide information, or in the
alternative, a Motion to Compel Production of the
SCRAM report. On January 24, 2017, the trial court
Ordered the Commonwealth to turn over any reports
of SCRAM monitoring activity that will be the subject
of the Violation Petition.
Two weeks later, I received an email from a company
named Vigilnet. In York County, the SCRAM program
is monitored and administered through Vigilnet which
is not the manufacturer, owner, or actual monitor
of the devices. Rather, Vigilnet is the third-party
administrator with whom defendants and Probation
interact. In the email from Vigilnet, I was provided
with a copy of a report it had just completed for the
violation. Obviously, this could not be the report upon
which the violation was based, and it was therefore
Ms. Manzi's position that the Commonwealth failed to
comply with the Court's January 24, 2017 Order.
At the February 1, 2017 IP Violation Hearing, Ms.
Manzi raised the issue of the original report not
being provided. The trial court advised Ms. Manzi to
seek a Subpoena and informed the Commonwealth
that the hearing was being continued, " . . . so that
the Commonwealth could provide expert testimony
with regard to reports generated by the [SCRAM]
monitor which indicated tampering." The court also
ordered that "everybody involved in [the SCRAM]
report is going to show . . . . We're going to have a
full evidentiary hearing. We won't have any hearsay.
We'll have first person testimony . . . ." The Judge's
requirement that everyone must attend would turn
out to be an important element of this case.
Ms. Manzi then subpoenaed the original SCRAM
violation report as well as any correspondence
regarding the Violation Petition in the possession
of Probation and Vigilnet. In response, Ms. Manzi
received the report originally sent from SCRAM
Systems to Vigilnet alleging a violation as well as
internal correspondence between Probation and
Vigilnet.

Hearing
The IP Violation Hearing was held on February 23,
2017. As a preliminary matter, the Court discussed
the fact that there appeared to be some missing
communications that should have been provided
in response to the Subpoena. The Commonwealth's
position was that there is no discovery in violation
matters. While the Court agreed, it noted that Ms.
Manzi had sought judicial intervention and that the

Court issued an order that required production.
The Commonwealth called two witnesses. The first
witness was the Probation Officer then assigned to
Ms. Manzi. That officer testified that she received the
SCRAM violation report but was not familiar with
SCRAM because she just transferred from a different
area of the Probation Department. The second witness
was a Vigilnet representative (Vigilnet Rep.). The
Vigilnet Rep. was the person who prepared the first
report sent to Ms. Manzi (i.e., the report that was
created after the Violation Petition was filed).

The Commonwealth's first order of business was
to have the Vigilnet Rep. qualified as an Expert. The
Vigilnet Rep. testified he had 5½ years of experience
working with SCRAM. With regard to the particular
training that he had with SCRAM, he testified that he
" . . . received a level-one training, which gave you
the basics of the bracelet itself in the operation of
how it works. Then [he] received a second tier, leveltwo training that teaches you how to interpret the
data." The Vigilnet Rep. also testified that he had
been qualified as an expert three or four times prior
to this hearing.4 After some back and forth between
the Commonwealth and myself, the Commonwealth
stated that " . . . we're not looking to do a deep dive
into the science behind the devices or anything to
that nature. The science or engineering behind the
device, is not [what] we[']re seeking to go into today,
as we don't believe that's what the issue is based on
the information that the Commonwealth has and
will provide." The Court admitted the Vigilnet Rep.
as an expert, with the understanding that should
his testimony delve into the underlying science, the
defense could renew its objection.
The Vigilnet Rep. testified that the SCRAM monitors
do two things. First, they read a person's transdermal
alcohol content ("TAC") by taking samples from
the skin. Second, they read the level of infrared
("IR") light that is sent from the monitor to the skin.
Regarding this second function, the monitor measures
the IR light voltage as it reflects off the skin and back
to the monitor.
The Vigilnet Rep. also testified that there are two
types of tamper violations. One occurs when the
infrared voltage changes either 12% up or 17% down
over a certain period. That period is eight hours if no
alcohol is detected or three hours if a TAC reading of
at least .005% is detected.
In the instant matter, the allegation was that there
was one reading of alcohol of .007% in the middle of
the 7-hour tamper period. TAC and IR voltage readings
are taken approximately every 30 minutes. The TAC
readings on both sides of that .007% reading were
negative.

Vol. 5, Issue 3 l For The Defense

For the Defense - Vol. 5, Issue 3

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of For the Defense - Vol. 5, Issue 3