Massachusetts G.L. c. 265, § 47: GPS Monitoring of Sex Offense Probationers
If you are facing probation for a sex offense conviction in Massachusetts, you may be told that GPS monitoring is mandatory. A 2019 court ruling means that is no longer automatically true. Understanding your rights here matters.
Call (978) 969-2890 for a free consultation.
Facing GPS Monitoring? Here's What You Need to Know.
For over 30 years, we have helped people through exactly what you're experiencing right now. If a probation officer or judge has told you that G.L. c. 265, § 47 requires you to wear a GPS monitoring device, it is important to know that this is no longer treated as automatic in every case.
Call (978) 969-2890 for a free consultation.
Call (978) 969-2890 for a free consultation.
What Does G.L. c. 265, § 47 Require?
Massachusetts G.L. c. 265, § 47 states that any person placed on probation for an offense defined as a "sex offense," a "sex offense involving a child," or a "sexually violent offense" under G.L. c. 6, § 178C must, as a condition of that probation, wear a GPS device or comparable device for the entire length of the probationary period.
This is not a separate criminal charge and does not carry its own fine or prison sentence. It is a mandatory condition attached to a sentence of probation following conviction for a qualifying offense. The probation department administers the device, which typically consists of an ankle bracelet paired with a GPS-enabled tracking phone.
In December 2018, the Supreme Judicial Court decided Commonwealth v. Feliz, holding that mandatory, blanket GPS monitoring under this statute is unconstitutional as applied where it is imposed without any individualized assessment of whether the monitoring is actually a reasonable search under Article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.
Following Feliz, a judge must weigh the Commonwealth's need for monitoring against the privacy intrusion it creates for that specific individual before imposing it, rather than applying the requirement automatically based on the conviction alone.
This is not a separate criminal charge and does not carry its own fine or prison sentence. It is a mandatory condition attached to a sentence of probation following conviction for a qualifying offense. The probation department administers the device, which typically consists of an ankle bracelet paired with a GPS-enabled tracking phone.
In December 2018, the Supreme Judicial Court decided Commonwealth v. Feliz, holding that mandatory, blanket GPS monitoring under this statute is unconstitutional as applied where it is imposed without any individualized assessment of whether the monitoring is actually a reasonable search under Article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.
Following Feliz, a judge must weigh the Commonwealth's need for monitoring against the privacy intrusion it creates for that specific individual before imposing it, rather than applying the requirement automatically based on the conviction alone.
Which Offenses Trigger This Requirement?
This statute applies to any offense defined as a sex offense, a sex offense involving a child, or a sexually violent offense under G.L. c. 6, § 178C. That definition is lengthy, but commonly includes offenses such as:
Indecent Assault and Battery on a Child Under 14: A qualifying sex offense involving a child.
Rape or Aggravated Rape: A qualifying sexually violent offense.
Possession or Dissemination of Child Pornography: Confirmed as a qualifying offense by the Supreme Judicial Court in Commonwealth v. Guzman.
Enticing a Child Under 18 for Prostitution or Trafficking: A qualifying offense involving a child.
Second or Subsequent Open and Gross Lewdness: A qualifying offense on a repeat basis.
This is not an exhaustive list. If you are uncertain whether your specific conviction qualifies, or believe GPS monitoring has been imposed without the individualized assessment Feliz requires, that is a question worth raising with an attorney before you accept the condition as fixed.
Indecent Assault and Battery on a Child Under 14: A qualifying sex offense involving a child.
Rape or Aggravated Rape: A qualifying sexually violent offense.
Possession or Dissemination of Child Pornography: Confirmed as a qualifying offense by the Supreme Judicial Court in Commonwealth v. Guzman.
Enticing a Child Under 18 for Prostitution or Trafficking: A qualifying offense involving a child.
Second or Subsequent Open and Gross Lewdness: A qualifying offense on a repeat basis.
This is not an exhaustive list. If you are uncertain whether your specific conviction qualifies, or believe GPS monitoring has been imposed without the individualized assessment Feliz requires, that is a question worth raising with an attorney before you accept the condition as fixed.
What GPS Monitoring Actually Involves
The Device and Exclusion Zones
The GPS device is administered by the probation department and typically consists of:
● An ankle bracelet worn continuously
● A GPS-enabled tracking phone that communicates with the bracelet and reports your location to the probation department ● Defined geographic exclusion zones, which trigger alerts and sanctions if entered
● An ankle bracelet worn continuously
● A GPS-enabled tracking phone that communicates with the bracelet and reports your location to the probation department ● Defined geographic exclusion zones, which trigger alerts and sanctions if entered
The Feliz Ruling: A Constitutional Limit
In Commonwealth v. Feliz, 481 Mass. 689 (2019), the Supreme Judicial Court held that automatically imposing GPS monitoring on every probationer convicted of a qualifying offense, without any case-specific analysis, violates Article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. Before imposing the condition, a judge must now weigh factors such as the person's actual risk of reoffending, any history of probation violations, and whether there is a specific, identifiable victim who requires protection, against the significant privacy intrusion that continuous location tracking creates.
The Guzman and Selavka Rulings
In Commonwealth v. Guzman, the Supreme Judicial Court held that once a defendant is convicted of a qualifying offense and sentenced to probation, a judge has no discretion to simply decline to consider GPS monitoring as a category, though Feliz has since layered an individualized reasonableness requirement on top of that. Separately, in Commonwealth v. Selavka, the Court held that a GPS monitoring order must be issued within 60 days of judgment under Rule 29(a), and a probationer may challenge an order imposed outside that window.
Collateral Consequences
● Sex offender registration obligations, which are separate from and in addition to GPS monitoring
● Potential impact on employment and housing
● Restrictions on where you may live or work if exclusion zones are imposed
● Immigration consequences for non-citizens
● Firearms restrictions under Massachusetts and federal law
● Impact on custody or family court proceedings
● Sanctions, including possible probation violation proceedings, for exclusion zone breaches or device malfunctions
● Potential impact on employment and housing
● Restrictions on where you may live or work if exclusion zones are imposed
● Immigration consequences for non-citizens
● Firearms restrictions under Massachusetts and federal law
● Impact on custody or family court proceedings
● Sanctions, including possible probation violation proceedings, for exclusion zone breaches or device malfunctions
Related Statutes and Provisions
● G.L. c. 6, § 178C: Defines "sex offense," "sex offense involving a child," and "sexually violent offense," the categories this GPS statute cross-references
● G.L. c. 6, § 178K: Governs Sex Offender Registry Board classification, a separate and additional obligation from GPS monitoring
● Commonwealth v. Feliz, 481 Mass. 689 (2019): the controlling case establishing the individualized-reasonableness requirement discussed above
● G.L. c. 6, § 178L: Governs your right to a classification hearing before the Sex Offender Registry Board, a separate proceeding from any GPS monitoring challenge
● Probation Violation Proceedings: Alleged exclusion zone breaches or device tampering are typically handled through the standard probation violation process
● Community Parole Supervision for Life: a separate post-incarceration supervision regime
● G.L. c. 6, § 178K: Governs Sex Offender Registry Board classification, a separate and additional obligation from GPS monitoring
● Commonwealth v. Feliz, 481 Mass. 689 (2019): the controlling case establishing the individualized-reasonableness requirement discussed above
● G.L. c. 6, § 178L: Governs your right to a classification hearing before the Sex Offender Registry Board, a separate proceeding from any GPS monitoring challenge
● Probation Violation Proceedings: Alleged exclusion zone breaches or device tampering are typically handled through the standard probation violation process
● Community Parole Supervision for Life: a separate post-incarceration supervision regime
Related Practice Areas:
Our Violent Crimes Practice Area Overview. under G.L. c. 265, §§ 45-45A, that can apply to certain sex offenders in addition to probationChallenging GPS Monitoring
Since Feliz, GPS monitoring is no longer something a judge can impose without an individualized reasonableness analysis. If your case involves a low risk-of-reoffense assessment, no history of probation violations, no geographically proximate victim, or a favorable sex offender registry classification, these facts can support a motion to waive or limit the monitoring requirement.
If GPS monitoring was already imposed without this individualized analysis, or was imposed more than 60 days after judgment in violation of the Selavka timing rule, that may also support a challenge. An experienced criminal defense attorney can review your probation order and determine whether a motion to modify or waive the condition is appropriate.
If GPS monitoring was already imposed without this individualized analysis, or was imposed more than 60 days after judgment in violation of the Selavka timing rule, that may also support a challenge. An experienced criminal defense attorney can review your probation order and determine whether a motion to modify or waive the condition is appropriate.
What To Do Right Now
If you have been told GPS monitoring is required, or you are already wearing a device you believe was imposed unfairly, here's what you need to know:
● Don't ignore the condition while a challenge is pending. Comply with the current order until it is formally modified
● Document any false alerts or device malfunctions, including dates, times, and how you responded
● Gather records supporting your case for waiver, such as risk assessment results, treatment program completion, and your probation compliance history
● Check the date GPS monitoring was orderedagainst your date of judgment, since orders issued more than 60 days later may be challengeable under Selavka
● Write down your specific concerns about the monitoring, including any impact on your employment, housing, or family situation
Contact an experienced Massachusetts criminal defense attorney immediately.
Call (978) 969-2890. We answer 24/7.
● Don't ignore the condition while a challenge is pending. Comply with the current order until it is formally modified
● Document any false alerts or device malfunctions, including dates, times, and how you responded
● Gather records supporting your case for waiver, such as risk assessment results, treatment program completion, and your probation compliance history
● Check the date GPS monitoring was orderedagainst your date of judgment, since orders issued more than 60 days later may be challengeable under Selavka
● Write down your specific concerns about the monitoring, including any impact on your employment, housing, or family situation
Contact an experienced Massachusetts criminal defense attorney immediately.
Call (978) 969-2890. We answer 24/7.
We're Here To Help
Facing probation conditions is stressful, and understanding your rights is only the first step. If you have questions about GPS monitoring under G.L. c. 265, § 47, or need to discuss your specific situation, we are available to help.
For over 30 years, we have helped people through exactly what you're facing now. A free consultation gives you the chance to understand your charges, learn about your defense options, and decide how to move forward. Go here if you want to know why working with us is the right choice.
Call 978-969-2890 for a free consultation. Serving Essex County, Middlesex County, and Suffolk County.
H. Ernest Stone, Attorney PC
900 Cummings Center, Suite 321-U
Beverly, MA 01915
Phones answered 24/7 by a real person.
For over 30 years, we have helped people through exactly what you're facing now. A free consultation gives you the chance to understand your charges, learn about your defense options, and decide how to move forward. Go here if you want to know why working with us is the right choice.
Call 978-969-2890 for a free consultation. Serving Essex County, Middlesex County, and Suffolk County.
H. Ernest Stone, Attorney PC
900 Cummings Center, Suite 321-U
Beverly, MA 01915
Phones answered 24/7 by a real person.
We'll Get You Through the Storm
Contact our team today for a free consultation. We are available 24/7.
