GPS Monitoring as a Condition of Probation: The SJC Clarifies Limits in Commonwealth v. Arnold
In Commonwealth v. Richard Arnold, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court delivered an important reminder: GPS monitoring is a search, and like any search under the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, it must be reasonable in scope and duration.
Although Massachusetts law mandates GPS monitoring for certain sex offenses, the Court made clear, again, that constitutional protections do not yield to blanket statutory commands. Judges must conduct an individualized analysis, and critically, must evaluate how long GPS monitoring lasts, not just whether it is imposed.
Background: Mandatory GPS Meets Constitutional Limits
Richard Arnold was convicted in 2012 of multiple serious sex offenses involving his children. He received a lengthy sentence: ten years in state prison followed by ten years of probation. As required by G. L. c. 265, § 47, the probationary sentence included GPS monitoring for the entire ten-year probationary term.
Years later, after completing his prison sentence and serving part of his probation, Arnold sought relief from the GPS condition. He relied on the Supreme Judicial Court’s earlier decision in Commonwealth v. Feliz, which held that mandatory GPS monitoring without individualized judicial findings violates Article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.
The motion judge denied relief, finding that continued GPS monitoring was reasonable. But the Supreme Judicial Court took the case on direct appellate review—and ultimately vacated that order.
The Central Holding: Duration Matters
The SJC’s core holding is straightforward but powerful:
The reasonableness of GPS monitoring depends in part on its duration, and judges must make explicit findings about how long GPS monitoring remains constitutionally justified.
GPS monitoring is not a minor intrusion. It involves:
A device physically attached to a person’s body;
Continuous tracking of location, movement, and travel patterns;
Long-term storage of detailed personal data.
Because of that intrusion, the Court emphasized that the longer the monitoring continues, the greater the constitutional burden becomes.
In Arnold’s case, the problem was not that the judge lacked authority to impose GPS monitoring. It was that the judge failed to analyze whether ten full years of monitoring were reasonable, as opposed to some shorter period.
That omission required reversal.
Statute vs. Constitution: Judges Are Not Bound to the Full Probation Term
One of the most important aspects of the decision is what it says about G. L. c. 265, § 47.
The statute says that certain defendants “shall” be monitored by GPS “for the length of probation.” But the SJC reaffirmed what it said in Feliz:
Statutory mandates do not override constitutional protections
Judges may impose GPS monitoring only for as long as the Constitution permits
That period does not have to match the full probationary term
In other words, a judge may lawfully decide that GPS monitoring is reasonable for, say, two or three years—but not ten.
What Judges Must Do Going Forward
After Arnold, trial judges must:
Conduct an individualized assessment of GPS monitoring;
Weigh the government’s interests (deterrence, victim protection) against the defendant’s privacy interests;
Explicitly consider the duration of monitoring;
Determine whether GPS monitoring remains reasonable for the entire proposed period.
If the Commonwealth cannot justify GPS monitoring for the full length of probation, the judge must limit it accordingly.
Why This Case Matters
For defendants, Arnold reinforces that probation conditions, even in serious cases, are not immune from constitutional scrutiny.
For defense attorneys, the case provides a clear roadmap for challenging overlong GPS conditions, especially where:
The defendant has complied with probation;
Risk assessments show reduced likelihood of reoffense;
Other probation conditions already address public safety;
GPS monitoring has become punitive rather than protective.
For judges, the message is equally clear: duration is not an afterthought, it is a constitutional requirement.
The Bottom Line
Commonwealth v. Arnold confirms that GPS monitoring cannot be imposed on autopilot. Even when monitoring is initially justified, courts must ask how long is too long.
Probation conditions must be tailored, justified, and reassessed—not simply carried forward because “that’s what the statute says.”
If you or someone you care about is subject to GPS monitoring as part of probation, this decision may open the door to meaningful relief.