NO. SJC-10824 PURSUANT TO GLC 211, 5 3 FROM ... - Mass Cases

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The defendant receieved numerous telephone calls on his cell phone from the GPS monitoring office questioning him about his whereabouts and curfew compliance, and whether he was near any parks or playgrounds. The defendant repeatedly complained that -he was - not a sex offender, and demanded to speak with the GPS monitoring system supervisor. After several convcrsations with the GPS monitoring supervisor the defendant was instructed to go back to the court and get them to vacate the GPS bracelet as a condition of bail, but until then the defendant had to remain in compliance or a warrant would be issue for his arrest. On October 22, 2009, the Pro Se defendant filed a "Motion To Vacate Curfew Due To Use Of 11 Electronic GFS Bracelet Tracking System, in Middlesex Superior Court (R.A. "13", no. 168). The prosecuting attorney reiterated that they wanted to monitor the defendant's movements while on bail to ensure that he did not violate a 1000 feet stay away order from the home that was burglarized, to ensure his appearance in court, and to monitor his involvement in any criminal activity. Again, the defendant argued 10
that he was - not a convicted sex offender, and that he was on bail for property related crimes. The defendant also argued that the government had an uLterior motive €or placing the Pro Se defendant an the GPS tracking device so as to monitor and conduct 24 hour surveillance on the defendant‘s movements as he prepared his case for trial. The hearing judge (Muse, J.), threatened to revoke defendant’s bail and have him placed back in custody i f the defendant persisted with his challenge to the conditions of bail that he wear a GPS bracelet, The motion was then denied (R.A. “13” , no. 168). The Pro Se defendant then complained to the Middlesex Superior Court Chief Frobation Officer (Joyce Coleman), that the Probation Department did not have the legal authority to maintain supervision over the defendant through the use of GFS monitoring because the defendant - was not a sex offender. The Chief Probation Officer agreed that there was a conflict, but that there was nothing she could do except to notify the Commissioner of Probation about the problem. 11
Page 1 and 2: COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS (1 of
Page 3 and 4: Case Laws Commonwealth v. Adkinson
Page 5 and 6: Case Laws Guiney v. Police Comm'r o
Page 7 and 8: Massachusetts Constitution Article
Page 9 and 10: I S S U E S P R E S E N T E D 1. WH
Page 11 and 12: STATEMENT OF PRIOR PROCEEDINGS On F
Page 13 and 14: On September 8, 2009, while on bail
Page 15 and 16: STATEMENT aF FACTS On January 6, 20
Page 17 and 18: of bail whereas the defendant was a
Page 19: On September 8, and 18, 2009, the P
Page 23 and 24: else he would be setting himself up
Page 25 and 26: which, remarkably, contained a list
Page 27 and 28: who threatened the defendant with a
Page 29 and 30: As a result of three months of cons
Page 31 and 32: phone call to the defendant from a
Page 33 and 34: A R G U M E N T S 1. WHERE A COURT
Page 35 and 36: A R G U M E N T S 2. WHERE PRETRIAL
Page 37 and 38: In Emelio E, V. Commonwealth, 453 M
Page 39 and 40: admitted to facts u€ficient for s
Page 41 and 42: constitutional danger, because it f
Page 43 and 44: defense); McKaskle v. Wigpins, 465
Page 45 and 46: Art. 14 Declaration of Rights, Mass
Page 47 and 48: Here, where Aldrich was released on
Page 49 and 50: R, Governmental GPS monitoring trac
Page 51 and 52: Here, in the non fiction, Aldrich n
Page 53 and 54: 3. WUERE DEFENDANT WAS ALLOWED TO P
Page 55 and 56: of trial (R.A. "49-50"), in violati
Page 57 and 58: Thus, where the lower court incorre
Page 59 and 60: "52-62"), and out of fear and intim

NO. SJC-10824 PURSUANT TO GLC 211, 5 3 FROM ... - Mass Cases

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?