\u201cWhether GPS monitoring as a condition of probation is a reasonable search turns in part on its duration, and the Commonwealth bears the burden of demonstrating that GPS monitoring is reasonable for the entire ordered duration. Notwithstanding the requirement in G. L. c. 265, \u00a7 47, that a defendant sentenced thereunder shall be subject to GPS monitoring \u2018at all times for the length of his probation,\u2019 a judge may order GPS monitoring only for a duration, if any, that the judge determines to be reasonable, even if the resulting period of GPS monitoring is shorter than the defendant\u2019s probationary term.\u201d Commonwealth v. Arnold, 2025 Mass. LEXIS 632 (Dec. 17, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The warrant was particular and the affidavit showed probable cause. United States v. Blackwell, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 262696 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 19, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe magistrate judge’s report persuasively establishes why Nosovitch’s arguments about the sufficiency of indictments, search warrants, and seizures are not correct. But even if he could establish a Fourth Amendment violation, it would not justify suppressing evidence.\u201d United States v. Nosovitch, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 262693 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 19, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cWhether GPS monitoring as a condition of probation is a reasonable search turns in part on its duration, and the Commonwealth bears the burden of demonstrating that GPS monitoring is reasonable for the entire ordered duration. Notwithstanding the requirement in … Continue reading