Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Appeals court oral argument focuses on constitutionality and duration of GPS monitoring in Commonwealth v. Richard Arnold Sr.
Summary
At oral argument, defense and the Commonwealth debated whether a trial judge must set a specific, individualized duration for warrantless GPS monitoring and whether the case should be remanded for such a determination under recent precedents including Street, Rodriguez and Feliz.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court heard argument in Commonwealth v. Richard Arnold Sr. on questions about the reasonableness and proper duration of court-ordered, warrantless GPS monitoring and related exclusion zones.
Attorney James McKenna, representing Richard Arnold Sr., told the court that "much of our claim concerns the idea that it was unreasonable ... for the superior court to order a 10 year ... warrantless search," and urged the justices to require individualized, time-limited assessments of GPS monitoring. McKenna proposed that trial courts either set shorter maximum monitoring periods or build in regular judicial review — he suggested three years as a possible maximum before a court must reassess whether continued GPS monitoring is justified.
The issue is consequential because GPS monitoring is treated as a search. McKenna argued that a blanket or effectively indefinite term of warrantless monitoring improperly relieves the government of its burden to prove a…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
