Commonwealth v. Johnson
AC 15-P-987
| Mass. App. Ct. | Apr 7, 2017Background
- Defendant was released on bail after a domestic-violence arraignment and agreed (signed form) to pretrial GPS monitoring and to stay away from the alleged victim (Jones); GPS bracelet fitted and operational.
- Several months later a West Roxbury home was burglarized while the owner was on vacation; jewelry worth > $250 was stolen and the kitchen window showed forced entry.
- Norfolk County investigators requested probation’s ELMO unit to map the defendant’s historical GPS data; ELMO located him at the West Roxbury house around 4:20 A.M. on August 29, 2013 for 15–30 minutes and alerted Boston police.
- Defendant was charged in West Roxbury with daytime breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony and larceny; he moved to suppress the GPS data as a warrantless search violating art. 14 (Mass. Declaration of Rights).
- Trial judge denied the suppression motion without an evidentiary hearing, finding the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy because he had agreed to continuous GPS monitoring as a condition of release; GPS data admitted and defendant convicted after a jury-waived trial.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Johnson's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether analysis/search of historical GPS data from an agreed-to ankle monitor is a constitutionally protected search | Consent to GPS monitoring as a bail condition eliminated any reasonable expectation of privacy in location data; probation/ELMO may share data with police | GPS monitoring of historical multi-month locational data is a search implicating a reasonable privacy expectation; consent to wear device does not categorically waive privacy in historical data | Court: No search under art. 14 here—defendant manifested no subjective expectation of privacy and society would not recognize one where defendant agreed to continuous GPS monitoring as condition of release; suppression denial affirmed |
| Whether denial of evidentiary hearing on suppression was proper | Judge could decide on submitted record because defendant failed to allege facts showing a search in constitutional sense | An evidentiary hearing was required to explore scope, duration, purpose, and notice about monitoring | Court: Denial of hearing was proper given the uncontroverted record and defendant’s failure to meet burden to show a warrant-requiring search |
| Whether using probation-held GPS data for unrelated law-enforcement investigation was permissible | Once defendant consented to monitoring, he cannot control third-party disclosure; sharing with police was lawful | Probation’s search and disclosure of months of historical data for ordinary law-enforcement purposes exceeded the scope of a bail-condition search and required probable cause/warrant | Court: Permissible here—defendant’s consent and the statutory framework meant no reasonable expectation of privacy in movements captured by the device |
| Sufficiency of evidence for breaking & entering and larceny convictions | GPS location points placing defendant at victim’s house around the time of burglary plus physical signs of forced entry and missing jewelry supported conviction | Single in-home GPS point and device margin of error made the inference of entry speculative | Court: Evidence sufficient when viewed in light most favorable to Commonwealth; GPS data (inaccuracies and all) plus circumstantial evidence supported convictions |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) (attachment of surreptitious GPS device to vehicle can be a Fourth Amendment search)
- Commonwealth v. Connolly, 454 Mass. 808 (2009) (installation/use of a GPS device implicates art. 14; property/seizure analysis discussed)
- Commonwealth v. Augustine, 467 Mass. 230 (2014) (compelled production/analysis of location data can be a search; discussion of historical locational data limits)
- Commonwealth v. Estabrook, 472 Mass. 852 (2015) (salient factor is duration of requested locational data; short windows may not implicate privacy)
- Commonwealth v. Rousseau, 465 Mass. 372 (2013) (GPS monitoring generates comprehensive movement records that can implicate privacy concerns)
- United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984) (disclosure of private information to a third party may negate an individual's control over subsequent government use)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of evidence review)