GPS Monitoring as a Bail Condition – What the SJC’s Decision in Tariri Means for Pretrial Rights in Massachusetts
ntroduction
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s recent decision in Benjamin Tariri v. Commonwealth underscores the powerful tension between the State’s interest in ensuring the appearance of a defendant on bail and a defendant’s constitutional right to privacy under Article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. In a landscape where GPS monitoring devices are increasingly used as a condition of pretrial release, this decision offers both defense attorneys and criminal-charged clients key guidance about when such monitoring is constitutional—and what to challenge.
For criminal defense attorneys in Boston, Brockton, and the broader Massachusetts region, the Tariri decision (SJC-13716) represents an important precedent. It reminds us that GPS monitoring is a search, that bail conditions are not automatic, and that pretrial privacy interests (although diminished) must still be weighed against governmental interests.
In this blog post, we’ll break down the facts of the case, walk through the legal reasoning, highlight what this means for bail conditions in Massachusetts, and provide actionable takeaways for defense attorneys and clients alike.
I. Facts of the Case
In Tariri, the petitioner, Benjamin Tariri, was initially charged with crimes including embezzlement and larceny—allegedly involving nearly $2 million taken from eight clients and a fraudulent loan solicited from a ninth client. At the time of his arrest, Tariri was at Boston’s Logan International Airport attempting to board a flight to Iran and did not have a return ticket. He had Iranian roots, though he had lived in the U.S. for roughly fifty years, and had recently spent six months in Iran.
At arraignment in Boston Municipal Court, bail was set at $50,000 cash, later reduced to $30,000 cash, which Tariri posted. In addition to the cash bail, a condition of pretrial release was imposed: GPS monitoring with an inclusion zone (i.e., limiting his movements to certain geographic areas, initially only Waltham, then expanded to Watertown and Allston). The inclusion zone did not include East Boston, the home of his wife and baby, thus posing difficulties for him personally.
A motion by Tariri to modify or vacate the GPS monitoring condition was partially granted (the inclusion zone was enlarged), but otherwise denied. He then petitioned under G. L. c. 211, § 3 in the county court to vacate the GPS monitoring condition pretrial; the single justice denied relief without a hearing. The SJC affirmed.
II. The Legal Framework: GPS Monitoring as a Search Under Article 14
A central legal point is that the imposition of GPS monitoring as a condition of pretrial release constitutes a search under Article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. The SJC in prior precedent has held that a warrantless GPS monitoring condition is presumptively unreasonable and therefore presumptively unconstitutional. See Commonwealth v. Govan, 496 Mass. 124, 128-29 (2025).
When faced with a bail-release condition that includes GPS monitoring, the court must assess whether that condition is reasonable under the totality of the circumstances, balancing (i) the nature and purpose of the search, (ii) the extent of intrusion on privacy expectations, and (iii) the governmental interest being served. The defendant on pretrial release retains an expectation of privacy, albeit diminished compared to an ordinary citizen.
In the bail-condition context, the only legitimate governmental interest justifying GPS monitoring is one that is statutorily authorized—in Massachusetts, that is under G. L. c. 276, § 58 (the bail statute). Under § 58, release conditions may serve to ensure (a) the defendant’s appearance in court, (b) no contact with victims/witnesses, or (c) protection of the public from defendants charged with domestic violence. For GPS monitoring tied to bail, the primary interest is ensuring appearance in court.
Thus: To impose GPS monitoring, the Commonwealth must show particularized reasons why the condition furthers the appearance-interest and that the intrusion upon privacy is justified under the facts of the case.
III. The SJC’s Application in Tariri
In Tariri, the court applied the above framework:
Governmental interest: The Commonwealth’s interest in ensuring Tariri’s appearance in court was clearly legitimate—it stemmed from alleged large-scale embezzlement (~$2 million), a convicted flight risk (attempted to board a flight to Iran, no return ticket), and the fact the bail money came from friends/family rather than his own residence or employment. The court accepted that cash bail alone likely would not guarantee his appearance, given these factors.
Particularized reasons: The court found particularized reasons to impose GPS monitoring with an inclusion zone:
Tariri’s extreme risk of flight (ties abroad, attempted departure).
His alleged disregard for other people’s money (suggesting that his risk/attitude warranted more than mere cash bail).
The inclusion zone aimed to create a buffer from Logan Airport (where he was arrested) and limit access to international departure points before the monitoring alert system could catch a violation.
Privacy intrusion and expectation: While the defendant on pretrial release does have reduced privacy expectations, the court still evaluated the intrusion entailed by GPS monitoring plus an inclusion zone (preventing him from going to his wife’s residence in East Boston, limiting employment opportunities, etc.). The court acknowledged these burdens but held the privacy intrusion was outweighed by the strong governmental interest given the facts.
Inclusion zone carve-outs: Tariri argued that the inclusion zone prevented him from working (delivery driving outside zone) and prevented him from seeing his wife and baby who lived outside the zone. The trial judge expanded the zone in response to the work-concern (to include Brookline, Newton, Cambridge, etc.). As to the wife/baby issue: while acknowledging the burden, the court held that maintaining distance from Logan Airport justified the exclusion of East Boston, given his flight risk and lack of residence with his wife at the time of arraignment.
Conclusion: Under the totality of the circumstances, the SJC found no abuse of discretion or error of law. The imposition of GPS monitoring with the inclusion zone condition did not violate his federal or state constitutional rights.
IV. Key Takeaways for Criminal Defense in Massachusetts
Given the Tariri decision, defense counsel and clients should keep several practical pointers in mind:
Challenge GPS monitoring at bail stage. GPS monitoring is not automatic—it is a search and must be justified. At your bail hearing, if the judge proposes GPS monitoring (especially with inclusion/exclusion zones), defense counsel should:
Ask for detailed findings: risk of flight, nature of charges, prior record, ties abroad, ability to post bail, employment status, residence stability.
Seek less intrusive alternatives (e.g., frequent check-ins, home detention without GPS, location-restricted curfew).
Ask for modification of inclusion zone (to account for employment, family needs) and for clarity on exactly how alert/violation system operates.
Focus on employment/family burdens. As in Tariri, one ground for modification was work restrictions due to inclusion zone. Defense counsel should gather evidence of: job opportunities that fall outside the zone, residence of spouse/children, medical appointments, child-care needs, etc. A well-documented restriction may persuade the court to modify the zone.
Monitor alert data and response times. The rationale for the inclusion zone often centers on how quickly probation/monitoring services can respond to a GPS violation and the risk that a defendant might reach an airport before response. Defense counsel should inquire about: the alert process, average response times, how geographic distance affects monitoring reliability. Challenge zones that are overly sweeping without corresponding justification.
Preserve motion practice. If GPS monitoring is imposed, consider early motion to modify or vacate the condition based on changed circumstances (employment, new residence, family hardship) and ensure the record is developed. As Tariri shows, modification is possible (zone expansion) though complete vacation was denied.
Expect data issues down the road. Even though the Tariri decision focuses on imposition of monitoring, GPS data collected pretrial can later be used by the Commonwealth—for other investigations or prosecutions. See Massachusetts commentary on GPS monitoring before trial (e.g., recent article) noting this risk. So consider client advisement: what data is collected; how long data is retained; what notice/disclosure the client has; what protections might be available regarding data usage.
Use the decision to educate clients. Many clients facing bail conditions assume the terms are standard and unchallengeable. Use Tariri to explain: GPS monitoring is heavy surveillance, a condition of release that implicates constitutional rights, and requires justification. Demonstrating that you have a plan to challenge and negotiate can improve client confidence and case management.
Local relevance for Brockton and surrounding counties. For a Brockton-based practice, include local tie-ins: e.g., explain how GPS monitoring might be applied in Plymouth County, Barnstable, or in the Brockton district; how employment in delivery driving, hospitality, or construction (typical local industries) may intersect with inclusion/exclusion zones; highlight your firm’s familiarity with negotiating bail conditions that account for local transportation, commuting patterns, family residences in the South Shore, etc.
V. Q&A Section
Here are sample Q&A parts you can embed and format as FAQ Schema later:
Q1: What is GPS monitoring as a condition of pretrial release in Massachusetts?
A1: GPS monitoring refers to the requirement that a defendant wear an electronic location-tracking device (typically an ankle bracelet) that allows the court, probation, or monitoring service to track their real-time or near-real-time movements. In Massachusetts this may be imposed as a condition of bail under G. L. c. 276, § 58, if the court finds that the defendant’s appearance in court or protection of the public warrants such a condition, and that the intrusion on privacy is reasonable under Article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.
Q2: Is imposing GPS monitoring constitutional in Massachusetts?
A2: Yes, but only if it is reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. Because GPS monitoring is a “search” under Article 14, it is presumptively unreasonable without particularized justification. The court must weigh the government’s interest (e.g., ensuring the defendant appears at trial, preventing flight) against the intrusion on the defendant’s expectation of privacy. The defendant’s expectation is reduced while on pretrial release, but it is not eliminated. The recent SJC case Tariri reaffirms this framework.
Q3: What did the SJC decide in Tariri regarding GPS monitoring?
A3: In Tariri, the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the trial court’s imposition of GPS monitoring with an inclusion zone as a condition of bail. The SJC found that the Commonwealth had shown particularized reasons (large alleged loss from client embezzlement, attempted flight to Iran, bail amount drawn from friends/family) and that the inclusion zone’s aim of maintaining distance from Logan Airport and establishing a buffer supported the bail condition. The intrusion on privacy was outweighed by the governmental interest under the facts.
Q4: How can defense attorneys challenge GPS monitoring conditions at a bail hearing?
A4: Defense attorneys should: request detailed findings on flight risk and appearance risk; argue less intrusive alternatives; gather evidence on employment and family burden from inclusion/exclusion zones; seek modifications to the zone or device terms; develop a record for motion to modify; and ensure clients understand the rights and data issues involved (e.g., how GPS data may later be used). In light of Tariri, attorneys should press for individualized justification rather than routine imposition of GPS monitoring.
Q5: What practical steps should a client take if they are subject to GPS monitoring pretrial?
A5: Clients should: comply with device requirements and alert protocols; keep documented work/employment needs, family visits, residence changes, charging/maintenance issues; notify defense counsel of any device malfunction or alerts; consider early motion for modification if the inclusion/exclusion zone unduly restricts employment or family/family needs; and discuss with counsel how GPS data may be used in future investigations so that appropriate objections or safeguards can be raised.
VI. Conclusion
The Tariri decision is a powerful reminder that GPS monitoring is not just another routine part of bail. It is a form of government surveillance that tracks your movements and limits your freedom before you have been convicted of anything. Under Massachusetts law, that kind of monitoring is considered a “search,” and it can only be imposed when there is a specific, individualized reason that justifies it.
For anyone facing criminal charges, this means you have the right to question whether GPS monitoring is truly necessary in your case. The court must explain why it believes this level of control over your movements is justified—and those reasons must relate to the only legitimate purpose under the bail statute: ensuring that you appear in court. If GPS monitoring makes it impossible for you to work, see your family, or live normally, you have a right to ask the court to modify or lift those restrictions.
The Tariri ruling also shows that judges must balance your constitutional right to privacy with the government’s interest in keeping track of you before trial. Even though your privacy is somewhat reduced while on pretrial release, it is not lost. You still have rights. And if the conditions placed on you go beyond what’s necessary to make sure you show up for court, those conditions can and should be challenged.
For defendants across Massachusetts—from Boston to Brockton and beyond—the message is clear: you don’t have to accept GPS monitoring as “standard.” You can and should ask why it’s being imposed, what limits it creates on your life, and whether less intrusive alternatives are available. Bail is meant to let you live your life while you await your day in court—not to keep you under constant watch.
In a time when electronic surveillance is becoming more common in the criminal justice system, Tariri stands as an important safeguard. It reminds every defendant that freedom before trial still matters—and that even while your case is pending, your privacy and dignity deserve protection.
Protect Your Freedom Before Trial
If you or someone you love is facing criminal charges in Massachusetts and has been ordered to wear a GPS monitor, you don’t have to face it alone. The courts must have a lawful reason for imposing such a restriction, and you have the right to challenge unnecessary or overly broad conditions that affect your job, your family, or your ability to live your life while awaiting trial.
At Benzaken, Sheehan & Wood, LLP, our Brockton criminal defense attorneys know how to fight intrusive bail conditions and work to secure fair, reasonable terms of release. We have defended clients across Plymouth County, Norfolk County, and Suffolk County in cases involving embezzlement, drug charges, assault, OUI, and other serious offenses—and we understand how GPS monitoring can become an unfair burden on defendants who have not been convicted of any crime.
Before you agree to any condition of release, talk with an experienced defense lawyer who can explain your options and stand up for your rights.
Call (508) 897-0001 or contact us online to schedule a confidential consultation today.
Don’t let unnecessary surveillance define your pretrial freedom.
Protect your rights, protect your privacy, and make sure your bail conditions are fair.