Massachusetts Appeals Court Reins In GPS Monitoring of Sex Offenders on Probation: What Commonwealth v. Streed Means for Your Rights

Boston-area Criminal Defense Lawyers Explain a Major Case on Probation and Electronic Monitoring

At Benzaken, Maguire, Sheehan & Wood, LLP, we keep a close eye on changes in Massachusetts criminal law—especially when it comes to how probation, surveillance, and constitutional rights intersect. The recent Appeals Court decision in Commonwealth v. Raymond Streed, 23-P-1321 (June 26, 2025), offers an important reminder: even individuals convicted of serious crimes retain constitutional rights, and probation conditions like GPS monitoring must be justified through a case-specific, individualized analysis.

In this blog post, we break down the Streed decision, explain its legal and practical implications, and show how an experienced Boston criminal defense lawyer can help challenge overbroad or unjust probation conditions—especially GPS monitoring for sex offenders.

The Basics: What Was Commonwealth v. Streed About?

Raymond Streed was convicted in 2007 of a series of violent crimes, including rape, kidnapping, and assault. He was sentenced to 18 to 20 years in state prison, followed by 10 years of probation. As a special condition of probation, the sentencing judge ordered GPS monitoring for the full 10-year term—a requirement that, in 2007, was mandatory for sex offenders under G.L. c. 265, § 47.

Streed completed his prison sentence and began probation in 2023. He then filed a motion to vacate the GPS condition, arguing that it constituted an unreasonable search under both the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.

The judge denied the motion but allowed a review after five years. Streed appealed.

The Appeals Court's Key Holding: GPS Monitoring Must Be Justified and Tailored

The Appeals Court affirmed that GPS monitoring was lawfully imposed based on Streed’s criminal history and risk of reoffending. However, the Court reversed the judge’s decision to leave the duration of GPS monitoring untouched. The court emphasized that judges must:

• Conduct an individualized balancing test;

• Consider the burden GPS places on the defendant’s liberty;

• And justify not only the imposition of GPS, but also its duration.

In short: GPS monitoring isn’t automatic anymore. Judges must explain why it's necessary and for how long.

Why This Case Matters for Anyone on Probation in Massachusetts

Many people assume that once they’re on probation—especially after a serious conviction—the Commonwealth can impose whatever surveillance it wants. That’s not true.

Massachusetts courts now require:

1.     Individualized findings about why GPS is needed;

2.    A balancing of public safety vs. personal liberty;

3.    Justification for the duration of GPS monitoring.

And if the Commonwealth doesn’t carry its burden? The condition may be struck down.

This applies even to Level 2 or Level 3 sex offenders, and even after convictions involving serious violence or sexual assault.

GPS Monitoring as a Search: The Constitutional Framework

The Appeals Court reaffirmed that GPS monitoring is a search under the Constitution. That means it can’t be imposed arbitrarily or automatically.

Quoting U.S. Supreme Court and Massachusetts SJC precedent (Grady v. North Carolina, 575 U.S. 306; Commonwealth v. Feliz, 481 Mass. 689), the court emphasized:

“Mandatory, blanket imposition of GPS monitoring on probationers is not reasonable and is not permitted.”

Instead, courts must conduct what’s known as the Feliz balancing test, weighing:

1. The government’s interest in rehabilitation and public safety;

2. The defendant’s privacy interests (which, although diminished, still exist);

3. The intrusiveness of GPS monitoring; and

4. The individual facts of the case, including risk factors and history.

What Went Into the Court’s Decision in Streed?

Despite affirming GPS monitoring as initially reasonable, the court pointed to a “constellation of factors” supporting its decision—based on the record presented at the hearing:

• Streed’s violent conduct during the offense;

• A decades-long criminal history, including assault, stalking, and multiple violations of protective orders;

• His classification as a Level 2 sex offender;

• Testimony from the victim and a clinical social worker;

• Streed’s own testimony about sobriety, rehabilitation, and remorse.

The judge properly weighed these in concluding that GPS served the Commonwealth’s legitimate interest in public safety and deterring future offenses.

Where the Judge Went Wrong: Duration of GPS Monitoring

The Appeals Court’s most significant holding involved the judge’s failure to limit or justify the 10-year term of GPS monitoring.

Here’s what the court said:

“Once [the judge] determined that GPS monitoring was appropriate, however, the motion judge had an additional obligation to tailor the period of that monitoring to the defendant’s circumstances.”

Simply saying “we’ll review it in 5 years” wasn’t good enough. Why?

• Because probationers still have liberty interests, and GPS is highly invasive;

• Because courts must consider the incremental effect of long-term monitoring;

• And because placing the burden on the defendant to re-raise the issue later violates Commonwealth v. Roderick, 490 Mass. 669 (2022), which held that it’s the Commonwealth’s burden to justify monitoring—not the defendant’s burden to prove it should end.

The court ruled that judges must set a definite, reasoned term for GPS monitoring at the time it’s imposed. Failure to do so may be unconstitutional.

What About Leaving Massachusetts? “Exclusion Zones” and Travel Restrictions

Streed also argued for the first time on appeal that the combination of GPS monitoring and probation conditions effectively banned him from leaving Massachusetts, which he claimed was an unconstitutional “exclusion zone.”

The court rejected this argument—not because it lacked merit, but because it wasn’t raised in the trial court. This is a crucial lesson: constitutional arguments must be made at the trial level to preserve them for appeal.

Still, the court hinted that such a challenge could succeed in another case—especially if GPS monitoring is used to enforce overly broad travel bans or exclusion zones. This is a growing area of concern in Massachusetts criminal law.

What Boston Criminal Defense Lawyers Should Know Post-Streed

As defense counsel in Boston and across Massachusetts, we must now ensure that courts applying GPS monitoring:

1. Make detailed findings under the Feliz standard;

2. Specify a term of monitoring, and justify that term;

3. Avoid shifting the burden onto our clients;

4. Preserve constitutional objections early to raise them on appeal.

Potential Defense Strategies After Streed:

• Motion to vacate GPS based on lack of individualized findings;

• Motion to reduce or terminate GPS based on Roderick and Streed;

• Arguments that travel restrictions + GPS constitute a de facto exclusion zone;

• Motion for reconsideration based on new facts, treatment success, or stability;

• Appeal where a judge fails to follow the Feliz balancing requirements.

Why GPS Monitoring Is So Invasive

For clients unfamiliar with what GPS probation involves, the level of intrusion is staggering:

• You’re tracked 24/7 via ankle bracelet.

• You must charge the device daily or face violation.

• You may be restricted from certain zones (even without a court order).

• Your movements are visible to law enforcement at all times.

• You face constant anxiety about violating a condition you may not fully understand.

This is why courts now require more than just a boilerplate order. The Commonwealth must prove that GPS is necessary, effective, and proportional—for a specific length of time.

Takeaways for Clients: How We Use Streed to Help You

At Benzaken, Maguire, Sheehan & Wood, LLP, we represent clients across Greater Boston and throughout Massachusetts who are:

• Fighting probation conditions imposed at sentencing;

• Seeking to remove or modify GPS after years of compliance;

• Challenging surveillance-based violations;

• Pursuing appeals where monitoring was ordered without justification.

The Streed case gives us new ammunition. Whether you’re just beginning probation or deep into a 10-year term of GPS monitoring, you may now have grounds to revisit the conditions.

We file:

1.     Motions to vacate or modify GPS;

2.    Constitutional challenges under Article 14 and the Fourth Amendment;

3.    Reconsideration motions under recent appellate decisions;

4.    Appeals where the judge failed to justify GPS duration.

Final Thoughts: The Commonwealth Cannot Monitor You Forever Without Justification

In Commonwealth v. Streed, the Appeals Court made clear that probation is not a constitutional blank check. Even individuals convicted of horrific crimes—like those involving sexual assault and repeat domestic abuse—retain privacy rights and due process protections.

If GPS monitoring is imposed, it must be:

🔹 Reasonable
🔹 Justified
🔹 Limited in duration
🔹 Subject to review based on individualized findings

If you or someone you care about is facing extended GPS surveillance—or any unfair probation conditions—contact a Boston criminal defense lawyer with experience challenging unconstitutional supervision.