WOODLAND, Calif. — A Yolo County judge Tuesday denied an accused’s request to remove his Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitor (SCRAM), despite defense arguments that the device imposes a significant financial burden and that the accused has remained compliant with its monitoring requirements.
The hearing addressed the accused’s mental competency but focused largely on whether his SCRAM device should be removed. Judge Catherine Rayhill denied the request despite Deputy Public Defender Aram Davtyan’s arguments regarding the accused’s financial circumstances.
The accused has four active misdemeanor criminal cases stemming from multiple alleged alcohol-related driving offenses between 2024 and 2026. Throughout the proceedings, the accused was repeatedly released on supervised own recognizance with strict conditions, including wearing a SCRAM device.
After four months of monitoring, DPD Davtyan requested that the court remove the device, citing the accused’s compliance with the monitoring requirements. According to Davtyan, since receiving the device, the accused has not had any reported violations and therefore requested its removal.
DPD Davtyan emphasized the accused’s financial circumstances, stating that he “does not make a lot of money” and allocates part of his income toward “support[ing] his siblings.” The accused has additionally resorted to making his own clothing to afford his multiple commitments. The ongoing cost of the SCRAM device imposes a significant financial burden, further straining the accused’s limited resources.
In response, Deputy District Attorney Rachel Meyers stated that the People’s position remained “unchanged.”
DDA Meyers opposed the removal request on the grounds that the accused still faces three pending DUI cases and another open misdemeanor case. She argued that continued SCRAM monitoring was necessary to protect public safety based on the accused’s past behavior.
Judge Rayhill denied DPD Davtyan’s request, finding that public safety should remain the court’s primary concern. However, the judge indicated that the issue would be revisited at the next hearing.
While discussing a rescheduled hearing, DPD Davtyan interjected, stating that the ruling was “not lawful” and that “[the accused] can’t afford it anymore.”
When Judge Rayhill offered two weeks to gather documented evidence of the accused’s financial circumstances, DPD Davtyan responded that he “can do it within a week.”
Ultimately, counsel agreed to reconvene in two weeks to further discuss the matter.
To comment please go to one of these social media platforms:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DavisVanguard
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/peoples-vanguard-of-davis-inc/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/davisvanguard/
X: https://x.com/davisvanguard
Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/vanguardnewsgroup.bsky.social
Subscribe to 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.
