Judiciary subcommittee to study GPS monitoring, law-enforcement access to Sentinel notifications

At a remote meeting of a Judiciary subcommittee, co-chair Alaric Fox and members agreed to prioritize review of GPS monitoring and how law enforcement communicates with the Sentinel victim-notification system, citing incidents in which victims received confusing alerts and officers could not quickly confirm details.

The discussion centered on whether law enforcement should have more immediate, verified access to Sentinel information — including a proposed dedicated law-enforcement line similar to the Department of Children and Families (DCF) law-enforcement referral line — and on clarifying permissible uses of GPS location data. Co-chair Karen Folio Conner framed the issue: "We had ... a healthy discussion about GPS," noting the system's statewide rollout and examples where victims received battery or alert notifications and later changed their assessment of their safety.

The subcommittee described a case in which a victim received a low-battery notification over the weekend, could not recall whether the call came from Safe Connect or Sentinel, and became worried after an earlier violation and arrest earlier in the week. Members said officers responding to the later call tried to reassure the victim but could not reach a Sentinel representative without the operator's incident number, which hampered timely resolution.

Andrea Dale suggested a concrete starting point: "I was thinking ... a line that's specific to law enforcement and maybe even advocates on that level to be able to speak to someone in person rather than waiting on a business day on a Monday." Members discussed alternatives such as ORI (originating agency identifier) or email verification to allow Sentinel to identify a caller as law enforcement and call back.

Legal limits and civil-rights concerns were raised. An attendee identified as Attorney Canning said constitutional issues could arise from expanded access and called for baseline education on how the Sentinel and GPS systems currently work before proposing changes. Fox framed the tradeoffs: if officers could retrieve GPS data to protect a current victim or locate a suspect in another active domestic-violence case, that use might be clearly permissible; using GPS for unrelated investigations could be "a bridge too far," he said.

The subcommittee did not adopt any formal policy changes at the meeting. Members instead directed staff to schedule training and follow-up: they agreed to invite law-enforcement personnel to present on the operational side of GPS monitoring and to invite family-relations staff (Joe DiTunno was suggested) and Safe Connect representatives to describe their roles. The group scheduled an October meeting to include a GPS overview and Q&A and set a recurring cadence of meetings every other month, with a tentative meeting on Oct. 28 at 11:00 and a December meeting on Dec. 16.

Alaric Fox said the discussion was forward-looking: "This is the discussion about what we wanna discuss in the future," stressing that the subcommittee's role was to identify focus areas and not to finalize technical or funding solutions at this stage.

The subcommittee also completed routine business during the session. A motion to approve the April 15, 2025, meeting minutes was moved and seconded and the minutes were adopted. Members later moved to adjourn at the close of the meeting.

Next steps include the requested trainings for the October meeting, invitations to Sentinel/Safe Connect and family-relations staff to explain system limitations, and further legal review of permissible law-enforcement uses of GPS data and the Sentinel system. Members said any legislative or budget proposals would require separate analysis and possible drafting by the larger committee or legislative staff.