Massachusetts SJC Limits GPS Monitoring on Probation: Commonwealth v. Arnold
Can the Commonwealth require someone on probation to wear a GPS monitoring device for the entire length of probation—automatically and without limitation?
In Commonwealth v. Arnold (2025), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court answered that question clearly: no.
This important decision strengthens constitutional protections for people on probation and makes clear that GPS monitoring is a serious search that must be justified not only in theory, but in duration.
GPS Monitoring Is a Search — And Time Matters
Massachusetts law provides that people convicted of certain sex offenses “shall” be subject to GPS monitoring for the length of probation. For years, that language was treated as mandatory.
That changed in 2019, when the Supreme Judicial Court ruled that automatic GPS monitoring violates the Massachusetts Constitution unless a judge makes an individualized determination that the monitoring is reasonable.
In Arnold, the Court went further:
Even when GPS monitoring may be justified initially, the length of time it is imposed must itself be reasonable.
A probation term and a GPS monitoring term are not the same thing. A judge cannot simply assume that if probation lasts ten years, GPS monitoring must last ten years too.
What Happened in Commonwealth v. Arnold?
Richard Arnold was convicted of multiple sex offenses and sentenced to:
Ten years in state prison, followed by
Ten years of probation with GPS monitoring imposed automatically under the statute.
After completing his prison sentence and serving two years of GPS-monitored probation, Arnold asked the court to reassess whether continued GPS monitoring was constitutional.
The motion judge denied the request—but failed to analyze whether ten full years of GPS monitoring was reasonable.
The Supreme Judicial Court reversed.
The Supreme Judicial Court’s Key Rulings
The Court made several critical points that now guide probation cases across Massachusetts:
1. GPS Monitoring Is a Warrantless Search
GPS monitoring continuously tracks a person’s movements, revealing intimate details of daily life. It is a significant intrusion on privacy and bodily autonomy.
2. Reasonableness Depends on the Totality of the Circumstances
Courts must weigh:
Risk of reoffense
Victim safety
Deterrence
Compliance with probation
Treatment progress
Duration is a required part of that analysis.
3. Duration Cannot Be Automatic
The longer GPS monitoring lasts, the greater the constitutional intrusion. Judges must consider whether monitoring remains justified over time—not just at the outset.
4. Statutory Language Does Not Override the Constitution
Even though the statute says GPS monitoring lasts for the length of probation, courts may impose it only for as long as it is constitutionally reasonable.
Because the trial judge failed to evaluate the length of GPS monitoring, the Supreme Judicial Court vacated the order and sent the case back for further proceedings.
Why This Decision Matters
This ruling has real consequences for people on probation throughout Massachusetts:
GPS monitoring is not automatic
Long-term monitoring must be justified with evidence
Courts may impose shorter GPS periods than the probation term
Judges must consider whether continued monitoring still serves a legitimate purpose
For defense attorneys, Arnold is a powerful tool in:
Motions to terminate or limit GPS monitoring
Probation modification hearings
Post-conviction constitutional challenges
Appeals involving intrusive probation conditions
Practical Takeaways for Defendants and Families
If you or a loved one is on probation with GPS monitoring:
The condition can be challenged
Long-term GPS monitoring is not presumed lawful
Compliance, age, counseling progress, and stability matter
Courts must reassess whether continued monitoring is still justified
Questions & Answers
Is GPS monitoring always required for sex offense probation in Massachusetts?
No. Courts must make an individualized finding that GPS monitoring is reasonable, including how long it should last.
Can GPS monitoring last the entire probation term?
Possibly—but only if the Commonwealth proves that the full duration is reasonable. Judges may impose a shorter monitoring period even when probation lasts longer.
Does good behavior on probation matter?
Yes. Compliance, treatment progress, and reduced risk factors are all relevant when courts reassess GPS conditions.
Can someone already on probation ask for GPS monitoring to be removed?
Yes. A motion may be filed asking the court to reconsider or terminate the GPS condition.
Does this decision apply only to sex offense cases?
While this case involved a sex offense statute, its reasoning applies broadly to probation conditions involving electronic surveillance.
Final Thought
Commonwealth v. Arnold reinforces a fundamental principle: constitutional rights do not end at sentencing. Even people on probation are protected from unreasonable searches—especially when electronic surveillance becomes long-term and deeply intrusive.
If you are dealing with GPS monitoring, restrictive probation conditions, or post-conviction issues in Massachusetts, you should not assume the conditions imposed are lawful or permanent.
Call Us Today
If you or a loved one is facing probation conditions involving GPS monitoring—or want to challenge an existing condition—contact Benzaken, Sheehan & Wood, LLP.
Call (508) 897-0001 today for a confidential consultation.