{"id":1281,"date":"2019-04-10T08:48:16","date_gmt":"2019-04-10T13:48:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?p=1281"},"modified":"2019-10-21T15:29:24","modified_gmt":"2019-10-21T20:29:24","slug":"commonwealth-v-feliz-mass-2019","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2019\/04\/10\/commonwealth-v-feliz-mass-2019\/","title":{"rendered":"Commonwealth v. Feliz (Mass. 2019)."},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Commonwealth v. Feliz, 451 Mass. 689 (Mass. 2019)<\/h2>\n

Nature of Case: <\/strong><\/strong> Appellant was convicted of a noncontact sexual offense and sentenced to probation. State law required the imposition of GPS monitoring as a condition of probation, and moved to challenge the constitutionality of this condition in the trial court. Trial court affirmed the constitutionality of the statute, and an appeal resulted.<\/p>\n

Holding:\u00a0<\/strong> Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that the statute was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment in Appellant’s case. GPS monitoring is a search that implicates the Fourth Amendment, and there was no evidence adduced that would indicate that the search would be a reasonable one in Appellant’s case so as to satisfy the requirements of the Fourth Amendment.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Case Documents<\/em><\/h2>\n