MA: Massachusetts Supreme Court Win on GPS Monitoring
The Supreme Judicial Court considered whether the duration of GPS monitoring imposed as a condition of probation under G. L. c. 265, § 47 is constitutionally permissible under art. 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. Section 47 mandates that defendants convicted of certain sex offenses “shall” be subject to GPS monitoring for the entire length of probation. However, in Commonwealth v. Feliz, the Court previously held that automatic, mandatory GPS monitoring without an individualized assessment of reasonableness constitutes an unconstitutional search.
Building on Feliz, the Court clarified in this case that the duration of GPS monitoring is a critical factor in determining whether the monitoring is reasonable. Because GPS monitoring is a continuous and intrusive search, its reasonableness depends not only on the nature of the offense and the defendant’s circumstances, but also on how long the monitoring lasts. A judge conducting the required individualized assessment must therefore explicitly consider the length of the proposed GPS monitoring when deciding whether it is constitutionally permissible.
The Court further held that the Commonwealth bears the burden of proving that GPS monitoring is reasonable for the entire duration ordered. Even though § 47 states that monitoring should last for the full probationary term, that statutory language cannot override constitutional protections. As a result, a judge may impose GPS monitoring only for such period, if any, that the judge determines is reasonable, even if that period is shorter than the defendant’s probation.
Applying these principles, the Court vacated the Superior Court’s June 5, 2024 order denying the defendant’s motion challenging the GPS condition. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Court’s opinion, including a new individualized determination of reasonableness that accounts for duration.
READ THE OPINION HERE: Commonwealth v. Arnold – GPS
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
They did this to me without a violation of probation but merely because I was homeless! I have been on monitor for fourteen years!
Wasn’t there are article on FAC recently about some state trying to get Registered sex offenders who were no longer on probation to have to wear a GPS for life? I could swear I saw that somewhere but maybe I didn’t take my medications, so who knows.
There’s a case in the 7th Circuit which was just argued the other day. It originated in Wisconsin. I believe it was posted here yesterday.
Martin
Glad to see this victory. A lifetime of search and Seizure is paramount to a police state.
Great win since individual assessments has been called for on each PFR to ensure they’re legally determined and not just emotionally determined overall.
This is nothing more than a hollow victory. In reality, they can still do GPS monitors when they want, for as long as they want. The only difference now is that instead of automatically rubber-stamping GPS monitor time frames, the judge must personally affirm—at the moment of sentencing—that it’s a “great idea” for each individual case.
But with new laws being passed that explicitly threaten to hold judges accountable for perseved lenient sentences—especially when released offenders go on to recommit serious crimes—it’s all but guaranteed that judges will err on the side their personal security. Lifetime GPS supervision every single time will remain the default, not the exception. Any excuse will be a safe excuse.who will argue?
What sounded like a concession is, in practice, still a reinforcement of tougher, longer-lasting forever oversight.
The ruling gives courts discretion to limit, reduce, or eliminate GPS monitoring.
It calls for courts consider the defendant’s individualized assessment and places more of a burden on the state.
I don’t think it follows anyone’s definition of a “hollow victory.”
Released offenders for any crime that is serious enough is a bad thing, but one does not deserve to be continually searched by people via a unit data stream. If they did, then maybe they shouldn’t be released to society. This is why individual assessments are needed to determine the reality of the matter, not the emotional fearful reaction most will exhibit.
Any win for us is a blessing, no matter where it’s at.
Too bad it doesn’t apply here (yet).
It’s true, but it makes a compelling argument to challenge in Florida. The monitoring for the entire length of their probation is ridiculous. I’m tired of seeing people get violated (due to the GPS) when they’re just trying to do the right thing.
Lobbyists will continue with the fear mongering while cashing in the checks provided by the GPS companies in Florida.
Nice win, nice post. Thank you for sharing