WOODLAND, CA – A hearing Wednesday in Yolo County Superior Court quickly shifted beyond standard arraignment procedure and became a debate over whether requiring SCRAM alcohol monitoring would place an unreasonable financial and employment burden on an accused facing two DUI counts with excessive blood alcohol enhancements and a suspended license allegation.
Judge Danette C. Brown presided over the hearing.
Deputy District Attorney C. Guthmiller began by outlining the circumstances of the arrest while supporting the request for SCRAM monitoring. Guthmiller referenced the reported high blood alcohol level and pointed to an open Twisted Tea found in the vehicle’s cup holder as part of the basis for the charges. The prosecution argued continuous alcohol monitoring was necessary because the accused posed a potential danger to herself and to public safety.
Deputy Public Defender M. Lanthier responded with an extensive argument detailing several alternative approaches the defense believed were more fitting. Lanthier stated both parties agreed the accused should attend Alcoholics Anonymous and the Alive at 25 program, explaining intervention would be imperative for her safety. Lanthier added the accused had medical insurance and could participate in licensed therapeutic services as part of a structured support plan.
Lanthier then addressed the SCRAM proposal directly. The court was informed the county’s SCRAM contract had recently ended, resulting in significantly higher private billing rates that could reach roughly $300 per month. The defense argued this cost would be difficult for the accused to sustain. The accused lived with family following a recent parental divorce and worked at In-N-Out at close to minimum wage. Lanthier argued SCRAM would leave the accused with very little disposable income.
The accused also expressed concerns to the court about employment. They stated a visible SCRAM ankle monitor would conflict with In-N-Out’s strict workplace appearance standards, making it likely the device would be noticed and potentially lead to job loss. The loss of employment would only worsen the affordability of the private SCRAM fees and undermine efforts toward stability during the monitoring period.
As an alternative, Lanthier suggested that if the prosecution wished to push for a monetary deterrent, an ignition interlock device would be more practical. The deterrent would not be visible at work or affect employment while still ensuring public road safety.
However, Guthmiller continued advocating for SCRAM and asserted continuous monitoring was necessary to uphold public safety. The prosecution argued two DUIs within a short time frame showed a significant ongoing risk and noted there was not enough demonstrated change to forgo the SCRAM requirement.
There was a short exchange regarding affordability, with the prosecution suggesting the accused could still manage the cost by budgeting their approximately $2,200 monthly income. Lanthier disagreed and reiterated the accused would be left with almost nothing after covering living expenses.
Despite the defense underscoring that the accused could not reasonably afford SCRAM and that the device could lead to loss of employment, the prosecution continued to advocate for monitoring. The combined financial and workplace impacts remained central to the disagreement, as the court weighed whether the accused could realistically comply with SCRAM conditions if imposed.
Judge Brown ruled that an ignition interlock device was a more appropriate alternative and ordered the accused to install one. The court further ordered the accused to attend AA and the Alive at 25 program and comply with standard alcohol-related conditions. Those included testing upon suspicion of DUI and complying with searches of their person, vehicle or residence for alcohol at any time, with or without a warrant.
The matter is scheduled to return Dec. 3 for proof of installation.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
