The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s (SJC) recent decision in Commonwealth v. Arnold marks an important clarification— and limitation —on the use of GPS monitoring as a condition of probation for sex offenses. Building on its ruling in Commonwealth v. Feliz, the Court made one point clear: under the reasonableness standard, a Court must make explicit, duration-specific findings when imposing GPS monitoring as a condition of probation.

Under G. L. c. 265, § 47, defendants convicted of certain sex offenses “shall” be subject to GPS monitoring at all times for the length of their probation. Nevertheless, In Commonwealth v. Feliz, the Court held that blanket, mandatory GPS monitoring without an individualized determination of reasonableness violates art. 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. The Court explained thar GPS monitoring is a highly intrusive search requiring a constitutional balancing of government interests against the individual’s privacy rights.

In Arnold, The SJC held that the reasonableness of GPS monitoring depends in part on its duration. It is the Commonwealth that bears the burden of proving that GPS monitoring is reasonable for the entire period ordered. Therefore, a judge may impose GPS monitoring only for the duration the judge finds constitutionally reasonable, even if that period is shorter than the probation term required by statute.

Commonwealth v. Arnold is significant for several reasons:

1. It confirms that long-term GPS monitoring requires heightened justification, not automatic acceptance.

1. It requires judges to make explicit, duration-specific findings, rather than relying on statutory defaults.
2. It reinforces the principle that constitutional protections do not disappear on probation.

Most importantly, Arnold ensures that electronic monitoring remains a tailored supervisory tool, not an unchecked form of long-term surveillance.

You can find the Slip Opinion here: https://www.mass.gov/doc/commonwealth-v-arnold-sjc-m13768/download