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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

States government retains sole authority and control over the Global Positioning System, which is maintained by the United States military under the authority of the Secretary of Defense. Federal Statute Title 10, c. 136, 5 2281. (Addendum, p. 10-12). Thus, when GPS technology is used by locaL law enforcement and state agencies, pursuant to G.L.c. 265, 5 47 (intrusion by the state), and the state physically attaches the GPS devise to the body of a person (electronic fetters), that person is deemed "SEIZED", and the body of the person himself becomes the host property of the electronic device (GPS) used by the state to continuously monitor, track, and record personal data on the locations,movements, and activities oE convicted sex offenders, which implicates state sanction seizures that impinge upon a person's constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment and Art. 14. 7/ commonwealth V. Cory, 454 Mass. 559 (2009); and Commonwealth V. Raposo, 453 Mass. 739 (2009). 7/ See Richard G. Wright, Symposium: Parole and Probation: Sex Offender Post-Incarceration Sanctions: Are There Any Limits? (zoo$), New England Journal On Criminal and Civil Confine- ment; and R.J. Parker, Case Gommment: Common- wealth v. Morasse n. 1: Elome Confinement: Stret- ching the Limits On Restricting a Probationer's Liberty. (2008), New England Journal On Criminal and Civil Confinement. 36
Here, where Aldrich was released on bail and he was - not a convicted sex offender (E.L.c. 6, 5 178C), when the government attached a GFS device to Aldrich's ankle II through means intentionally applied, II Brower v. County Inyo, 489 U,S. 593, 597 (1987), Aldrichwas, i n effect, unlawfully "SEIZED" by electronic fetters, which subjected him to "involuntary servitude," 8/ and where the government continuously monitored, tracked, and recorded the data on Aldrich's every movement and activities; Aldrich was, in effect, unlawfully "SEARCHED" through the significant capabilities of GFS technology, which substantially impinged upon Aldrich's constitutional rights to his personal liberty and freedom of movement where the government used the body of Aldrich I, to conduct GPS monitoring for their own purposes II constitued a seizure. Commonwealth v. Connolly, 454 Mass. 808, 823 (2009); United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705, n. 1 (1984)(tracking of beeper constituted seizure truck); Katz v. United states, 389 U.S. 347, 359 (1967) ("Wherever a man may be, he is entitled to know that he will remain free from unreasonable search and II seizures. ). Also see and compare seizure in Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966)(Fouth Amendment 8/ Where Aldrich is an African American and he was I_ not duly convicted of. the underlying felonyat thetime when the GPS bracelet was attached to him, Aldrich claim that, in effect, he waa pressed into "involuntary servitude" to the State in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (Addendum, p. 5). 37
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 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: Art. 14 Declaration of Rights, Mass
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?