Appeals – GPS – Pretrial release

Listen to this article

Where a petitioner sought relief from the imposition of global position system monitoring as a condition of pretrial release, a single justice’s decision to deny the petition should be affirmed because the commonwealth has shown particularized reasons why imposition of GPS monitoring furthers the legitimate governmental interest in ensuring the petitioner’s appearance in court.

“The petitioner, Benjamin Tariri, filed a petition in the county court pursuant to G.L.c. 211, §3, seeking relief from the imposition of global position system (GPS) monitoring as a condition of pretrial release. A single justice denied the petition, and Tariri appeals. We affirm. …

“We conclude that, in the circumstances of this case, the Commonwealth has shown particularized reasons why imposition of GPS monitoring furthers the legitimate governmental interest in ensuring Tariri’s appearance in court. Tariri has been charged with embezzling close to $2 million from his clients. According to the Commonwealth, Tariri raised the cash bail money from his friends and family. As the Commonwealth argued, the alleged offenses reflect a lack of concern for other people’s money (in the form of alleged embezzlement from his clients), suggesting that cash bail alone would not be sufficient to ensure his appearance in court. Moreover, as the Commonwealth again argued, Tariri presents an extreme risk of flight, where he maintains extensive ties to another country and was apprehended at Logan Airport with a one-way ticket to that country.

“We also conclude that, again in the circumstances presented here, the Commonwealth has demonstrated that the imposition of the inclusion zone as part of GPS monitoring also furthers the legitimate governmental interest in ensuring Tariri’s appearance in court. We note, first, that, to the extent that Tariri argues that the inclusion zone prevented him from securing employment, the motion judge expanded the inclusion zone to address this concern. …

“Second, as to Tariri’s argument that the inclusion zone prevents him from seeing his wife and baby due to their residence in East Boston, outside the inclusion zone, we conclude that imposition of this inclusion zone nonetheless was justified to maintain a distance between Tariri and Logan Airport. To begin with, Tariri may visit with his wife and baby within the inclusion zone. Moreover, and importantly, at the time of Tariri’s arraignment in the Superior Court, the Commonwealth stated that Tariri had not, at least for some period of time leading up to the arraignment, been in touch with his wife, even after he had been released on bail. Additionally, again according to the Commonwealth, Tariri’s wife indicated that she did not, at that time, know where Tariri was living; they were not residing together. Tariri had also recently spent six months in Iran, and there is no indication that his wife was there with him.

“Again, an inclusion zone that precludes Tariri from entering East Boston furthers the aim of maintaining distance between Tariri and Logan Airport due to Tariri’s high risk of flight. … Although Tariri argues that the inclusion zone does not sufficiently further this interest because the zone permits him to travel to other area airports, Logan Airport is the largest international airport in the region. It is also the airport at which he was arrested when he was preparing to board an international flight to Iran — a country to which he has strong ties — with no planned return.

“In the totality of the circumstances, including in particular the evidence regarding the nature of the alleged offenses, Tariri’s risk of flight, and Tariri’s lack of contact with and separate residence from his wife in the period leading up to his arraignment, the legitimate governmental interest in ensuring Tariri’s appearance in court outweighs Tariri’s expectation of privacy. The imposition of GPS monitoring with an inclusion zone, in other words, does not violate Tariri’s Federal or State constitutional rights. …

“In the circumstances, the motion judge, in declining to vacate the imposition of GPS monitoring with an inclusion zone as a condition of pretrial release, did not err or abuse his discretion. Nor, in turn, did the single justice err or abuse her discretion in denying Tariri’s G.L.c. 211, §3, petition.”

Tariri v. Commonwealth (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-121-25) (7 pages) (Rescript) Benjamin Tariri, pro se; Eva M. Badway for the commonwealth (Docket No. SJC-13716) (Oct. 30, 2025).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.