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

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 acti-
vities; Aldrich was, in effect, unlawfully "SEARCHED"
through the significant capabilities of GFS technology,
which substantially impinged upon Aldrich's constitu-
tional 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