The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court heard argument in Commonwealth v. Richard Arnold Sr. on questions about the reasonableness and proper duration of court-ordered, warrantless GPS monitoring and related exclusion zones.

Attorney James McKenna, representing Richard Arnold Sr., told the court that "much of our claim concerns the idea that it was unreasonable ... for the superior court to order a 10 year ... warrantless search," and urged the justices to require individualized, time-limited assessments of GPS monitoring. McKenna proposed that trial courts either set shorter maximum monitoring periods or build in regular judicial review — he suggested three years as a possible maximum before a court must reassess whether continued GPS monitoring is justified.

The issue is consequential because GPS monitoring is treated as a search. McKenna argued that a blanket or effectively indefinite term of warrantless monitoring improperly relieves the government of its burden to prove a continuing risk over time. He also warned that frequent mandatory revisits could retraumatize victims in cases involving severe historical abuse and said the record showed this defendant had gone more than four years with no exclusion zones set.

Rob Kidd, who identified himself as counsel for the Commonwealth, told the court the facts in this case are "extraordinary," describing the offenses as "contact offenses with children" and saying the defendant is classified at a high risk of reoffending by the registry referenced in the record. Kidd also stated that exclusion zones exist and that the defendant has been informed of them, which he said should reassure victims about the safety of disclosing addresses. Kidd said the Commonwealth would not necessarily oppose guidelines or a remand that allowed the trial judge to reconsider duration, and acknowledged that the recent decisions (discussed in argument as Feliz, Rodriguez and Street) had altered the legal landscape.

Several justices pressed both sides on practical mechanics. Justice Gazziano and other questioners asked whether a sentence framed as a fixed 10 years of probation with GPS that could later be reduced is constitutionally or practically different from imposing an initial three-year GPS term with the possibility of adding time later. The court also explored whether recurring judicial reviews would raise double-jeopardy concerns or improperly shift the burden onto defendants to ask to terminate monitoring.

Both counsel accepted that recent appeals-court authority required consideration of duration. Kidd acknowledged the time factor "is a consideration," while McKenna said Street requires a remand when the trial judge did not make an individualized duration finding. The justices also discussed the operational question of who should bear responsibility to seek modification — the Commonwealth or the defendant — and how judges should weigh factors such as the Sex Offender Registry Board classification, the severity and contact nature of the offense, and changes in victims' circumstances.

There was no decision recorded in the argument excerpt. The court's questions and the parties' responses centered on whether the appeals court's guidance requires a remand for the trial court to make an individualized duration finding, how to avoid undue retraumatization of victims, and how judges should balance statutory language, public-safety concerns and constitutional limits on warrantless searches.

The transcript indicates the attorneys and the panel discussed specific record references (including a March 2024 transcript page where the Commonwealth nearly agreed withdrawal of GPS was appropriate, and a cited page 72 of the appendix where Judge White discussed exclusion zones). The court also debated whether statutory language (referred to at argument as "Section 48") requires concurrent GPS monitoring and probation terms, an issue the parties acknowledged has been parsed differently in post‑sentencing cases.