Goe v. Comm’r of Probation

by
Petitioner pleaded guilty in a Connecticut court to a sex crime. As conditions of his probation, Petitioner was ordered not to leave Connecticut and to submit to electronic monitoring. Petitioner’s supervision was later transferred to Massachusetts, and a Connecticut judge ordered GPS monitoring be at the discretion of the Massachusetts Department of Probation. Thereafter, Petitioner requested that he not be subjected to mandatory GPS monitoring and that he be considered for travel permits to certain states. The Massachusetts Commissioner of Probation largely denied the request. After Petitioner was found in violation of probation conditions by a Connecticut judge, Petitioner filed a petition in the pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 seeking relief from the orders of the Commissioner. The Supreme Judicial Court held (1) where a petitioner argues that a special condition of probation that was added by Massachusetts is not mandated by Massachusetts law or is unconstitutional, this determination should be made by a Massachusetts court through a complaint for declaratory relief; (2) the Massachusetts may not add mandatory GPS monitoring as a special condition of probation for Petitioner; and (3) the prohibition on out-of-state travel for probationers being supervised for sex offenses is not an additional condition of probation imposed on a transferred probationer. View "Goe v. Comm’r of Probation" on Justia Law