DUI and monitoring device

[Freeoilchanges]

I'll try to make a long story short.  I'm facing a DUI, cop pulled me over in my driveway, suspected I was drinking.  ...medically I cannot drink.  So being on my property I refused to comply with any testing... (now i didn't know there is some language in the NRC, that being a nuke worker you're supposed to comply, but that's a different story)

Either way I refused testing so I'm looking at a suspended license or put a Baiid system in my car.

He's my dilemma, I like to ride: atvs, motorcycles, dual-sports, cars, and trucks, with a BAIID system I'd only be allowed to ride one vehicle. 

Now I see they make a ankle or wrist monitor to detect alcohol consumption. That would allow me to continue to do my favorite hobbies. Seeing as I don't drink, I have zero issues wearing one.

If I wore one of these devices, Im sure the metal detector would go off and I'd have to get wanded every time I'm entering the facility. However, I'm more curious about wearing it in the drywell. Is there any radiological concerns or reasons I cannot wear it?

Thanks in advance.

If anyone should know i have a lawyer, the states attorney is dropping the DUI, but is pushing for the suspension.

[Rennhack]

Even if there's no outright radiological prohibition, in practice this is likely going to be a problem.

Most ankle or wrist alcohol monitoring devices use rubberized or silicone bands that don't decon well. If that band picks up contamination, RP may require it to be removed — and since those devices are typically tamper‑evident, that usually means cutting it off. That alone can make them operationally incompatible with drywell work, regardless of intent.

Beyond RP, the bigger issue is honestly security and FFD perception. You don't owe anyone here your full story, but onsite security and access authorization absolutely evaluate credibility and judgment, not just facts. Language like "refused to comply," even if legally accurate, is something they react very negatively to. In nuclear facilities, refusal — especially related to testing — raises immediate red flags.

Even if the DUI itself is dropped, access decisions are administrative, not legal. If security or FFD feels there's minimization, inconsistency, or evasiveness, they don't need proof to say no — doubt alone is enough.

So while the idea of an alcohol monitor sounds reasonable on paper, in reality it's likely to:

• Create contamination and removal issues
• Trigger repeated security screening
• Draw more attention to the underlying issue rather than less

None of this is judgment — it's just how plants operate under NRC oversight. If you pursue this route, you'll want explicit, documented approval from Security, FFD/MRO, RP, and Industrial Safety before assuming it's workable.

[Fluffy Bunny]

🔴 The device is not the problem
🔴 The narrative and judgment are the problem