NO. SJC-10824 PURSUANT TO GLC 211, 5 3 FROM ... - Mass Cases
NO. SJC-10824 PURSUANT TO GLC 211, 5 3 FROM ... - Mass Cases NO. SJC-10824 PURSUANT TO GLC 211, 5 3 FROM ... - Mass Cases
There are only - two known cases cited in Massachusetts which challenged the application of G.L.c. 265, 5 47, where a lower court judge required that an untried defendant wear a GPS monitoring device as a condition of pretrial release, and in BOTH cases this Court granted relief. See Commonwealth v. Raposo, 453 Mass. 739 (2009) and Emelio E. v. Commonwealth, 453 Mass. 1024 (2009). , In Raposo, supra, this Court elected to not address the five reported questions pertain- ing to various constitutional issues associated with the application of G.L.c. 265, 5 47 to persons placed on probation for certain sex offenses and required to wear a GPS monitoring device. In Raposo, supra at 742, this Court left open and undecided five reported questions, and ruled that "[b]ecause we conclude that 5 47 does not apply to a person, such as the defendant in this case, who is placed oh probation before trial or entry of guilty plea or admission to sufficient facts, and not as part of a sentence or disposition following conviction, we need not reach the reported constitutional questions. Raposo, supra at 733. 26 1,
In Emelio E, V. Commonwealth, 453 Mass. 1024 (2009), this Court was faced with a similar issue whether G.L.c. 265, 8 47, required that Emelio E. I, wear a global positioning system (GPS) device as a mandatory condition of his release on probation pending trial." Emelio, supra at 560. In deciding Emelio, this Court relied on its prior decision in Raposo, supra at 740, holding that S 47 "does not apply to persons placed on probation prior to trial and prior to conviction or entry of a plea oradmission to facts sufficient for a finding of guilty." Emphasis added. Emelio, supra at 1024 Though Raposo, was placed on pretrial proba- tion pursuant to G.L.c. 276, s 87, this Court rejected the Commonwealth's argument that 8 47 must be interpreted harmoniously with G.L.c. 276, 5 87. Simply put, this Court stated: "[t]he I, argument is not persuasive. Raposo, supra at 748. Cf. Commonwealth v. Donohue, 452 Mass. 256 (2008). Conversely, Emelio, was released on bail with supervised release through the probation department pursuant to G.L.c. 276, 5 58. Again this Court reiterated its holding in Raposo, supra at 740, that 5 47 "does not apply topersons
- 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 and 20: On September 8, and 18, 2009, the P
- Page 21 and 22: that he was - not a convicted sex o
- 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: A R G U M E N T S 2. WHERE PRETRIAL
- 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
In Emelio E, V. Commonwealth, 453 <strong>Mass</strong>. 1024<br />
(2009), this Court was faced with a similar issue<br />
whether G.L.c. 265, 8 47, required that Emelio E.<br />
I,<br />
wear a global positioning system (GPS) device as<br />
a mandatory condition of his release on probation<br />
pending trial." Emelio, supra at 560. In deciding<br />
Emelio, this Court relied on its prior decision<br />
in Raposo, supra at 740, holding that S 47 "does<br />
not apply to persons placed on probation prior to<br />
trial and prior to conviction or entry of a plea<br />
oradmission to facts sufficient for a finding of<br />
guilty." Emphasis added. Emelio, supra at 1024<br />
Though Raposo, was placed on pretrial proba-<br />
tion pursuant to G.L.c. 276, s 87, this Court<br />
rejected the Commonwealth's argument that 8 47<br />
must be interpreted harmoniously with G.L.c. 276,<br />
5 87. Simply put, this Court stated: "[t]he<br />
I,<br />
argument is not persuasive. Raposo, supra at<br />
748. Cf. Commonwealth v. Donohue, 452 <strong>Mass</strong>. 256 (2008).<br />
Conversely, Emelio, was released on bail<br />
with supervised release through the probation<br />
department pursuant to G.L.c. 276, 5 58. Again<br />
this Court reiterated its holding in Raposo,<br />
supra at 740, that 5 47 "does not apply topersons
Change language