Commonwealth v. Johnson
119 N.E.3d 669
Mass.2019Background
- Defendant was on probation with an ankle GPS device for six months after stipulating to probation violations; device recorded location every minute and uploaded hourly to the ELMO system.
- Months after the GPS monitoring period ended, police (prompted by a later arrest) asked probation officers to review the defendant’s historical GPS records to see if his locations matched several unsolved break‑ins.
- Probation and police accessed targeted subsets of the GPS data corresponding to the times/places of suspected break‑ins and found the defendant at or near crime scenes; defendant was indicted and tried before a judge (jury waived).
- Defendant moved to suppress the historical GPS data as an unreasonable warrantless search under the Fourth Amendment and art. 14; the motion judge denied suppression and the trial court convicted him of multiple breaking-and-entering and larceny counts.
- On appeal the Supreme Judicial Court considered (1) whether the initial imposition of GPS monitoring and (2) the later police access to historical GPS data without a warrant were searches under the Fourth Amendment and art. 14, and whether the evidence was sufficient to convict for one Marshfield break‑in.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether attaching GPS as probation condition was a search and, if so, whether it was reasonable | N/A (government action challenged by defendant) | D argued imposition was a search that violated privacy | Attaching the device was a constitutional search but reasonable given defendant's criminal history and probation purpose; individualized balancing required and satisfied here |
| Whether police access to historical GPS data (after probation ended) was a search | Police argue access to targeted historical data to check presence at crime scenes is not a constitutional search for a probationer | D argues accessing months of minute‑by‑minute GPS records without a warrant violated reasonable expectation of privacy | No search under Fourth Amendment or art. 14: as a probationer he had diminished privacy and could not reasonably expect GPS whereabouts (particularly at times/places of suspected crimes during probation) to remain private; targeted review was allowed |
| Whether the statute allowing police inspection of probation records eliminates privacy expectation | Commonwealth: G. L. c. 276, § 90 permits police inspection of probation records | D: statutory authorization doesn't obviate constitutional protection | Statute is relevant to objective expectation but does not resolve constitutional question; court independently reviewed and concluded no reasonable privacy expectation here |
| Sufficiency of evidence to convict for Marshfield break‑in | Commonwealth: GPS maps plus other facts permit reasonable inference of breaking/entering and larceny | D: GPS only showed vicinity, not entry; conviction rests on speculation | Evidence sufficient: GPS placed defendant on/adjacent to property at relevant times; broken glass and missing items >$250 supported reasonable inference of breaking/entering and larceny; convictions affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018) (individuals have privacy interest in long‑term location records; whole‑of‑movement rule)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) (attachment of GPS device to vehicle is trespass and generates comprehensive movement records)
- Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001) (warrant required for certain technology‑enabled searches of private life)
- Knights v. United States, 534 U.S. 112 (2001) (probationers have diminished privacy expectations; supervision justifies some searches)
- Augustine v. Commonwealth, 467 Mass. 230 (2014) (Mass. art. 14 protects against extended GPS/CSLI surveillance without oversight)
- Rousseau v. Commonwealth, 465 Mass. 372 (2013) (GPS tracking of vehicles implicates location privacy)
- Feliz v. Commonwealth, 481 Mass. 689 (2019) (art. 14 requires individualized balancing to impose GPS monitoring as probation condition)
- Estabrook v. Commonwealth, 472 Mass. 852 (2015) (six‑hour CSLI rule: short duration requests less likely to implicate reasonable privacy expectations)
- Arzola v. Commonwealth, 470 Mass. 809 (2015) (narrow DNA analysis that reveals only source identity may avoid broader privacy intrusion)
- Boroian v. Mueller, 616 F.3d 60 (1st Cir. 2010) (post‑probation DNA matching against database did not violate privacy expectations)