Summary
The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that a probation violation finding was unwarranted where an indigent homeless defendant could not operate the required GPS monitoring equipment because his shelter lacked the necessary electrical or telephone access. The court concluded that the defendant’s noncompliance was without fault and that the judge improperly treated insufficient employment efforts as a violation when employment was not a probation condition. The court set aside the finding that the defendant violated the GPS monitoring condition.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a probationer may be found in violation of a GPS-monitoring condition when the failure to comply resulted from homelessness and technological requirements beyond the probationer's control, without evidence of willful noncompliance.
- Whether a judge may find a violation of a GPS-monitoring condition based on insufficient efforts to obtain employment when employment was not an express condition of probation.
Holdings
- A finding of probation violation was unwarranted where the defendant's failure to use the required GPS equipment resulted from circumstances beyond his control, he diligently and in good faith sought alternatives, and there was no evidence of willful noncompliance.
- The judge erred by finding a violation of the GPS condition based on the defendant's failure to make sufficient efforts to find employment because obtaining employment was not a condition of probation and the defendant lacked fair warning that such conduct could result in revocation.
Key quotations
“In these circumstances, where there was no evidence of wilful noncompliance, a finding of violation of the condition of wearing an operable GPS monitoring device was unwarranted, and is akin to punishing the defendant for being homeless.” (458 Mass. at 578)
“Due process... requires that a defendant sentenced to probation receive fair warning of conduct that may result in the revocation of probation” (458 Mass. at 579)
Factual background
The defendant, who was indigent and living in a homeless veterans' shelter, was required as a probation condition to wear GPS equipment that required access to a telephone line or electrical outlet unavailable at the shelter. He and the probation department diligently and in good faith explored alternative housing and technology, but no workable solution was available before the violation finding. The defendant was otherwise cooperative, had not violated other probation conditions, and had not willfully remained homeless to evade monitoring. The judge nevertheless found a violation because he had not made sufficient efforts to obtain employment that might have enabled him to secure compliant housing.
Procedural history
The defendant pleaded guilty in the Chelsea Division of the District Court Department to two counts of indecent assault and battery on a child under fourteen and received a sentence including probation with GPS monitoring. After he was unable to operate the GPS equipment while living in a homeless shelter, the District Court found him in violation of probation, based partly on his failure to make sufficient efforts to obtain employment. The Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the finding on appeal and set it aside.