The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has affirmed the use of GPS monitoring as a condition of pretrial release for Benjamin Tariri, an attorney accused of embezzling close to $2 million from multiple clients. The court's decision in *Benjamin Tariri v. Commonwealth* (SJC-13716) rejected Tariri's constitutional challenge to the electronic monitoring requirement.
Tariri filed a petition in county court pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws chapter 211, section 3, seeking relief from the GPS monitoring condition imposed upon his pretrial release. A single justice denied the petition, prompting Tariri's appeal to the full court. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the lower court's decision on Oct. 30, 2025.
The charges against Tariri stem from his work as a practicing attorney. According to the Commonwealth, Tariri embezzled money from eight different clients and solicited a fraudulent loan from a ninth client. The alleged criminal activity totaled close to $2 million across the nine victims.
The circumstances of Tariri's arrest heightened concerns about flight risk. He was arrested at Logan International Airport the day after the complaint was issued, having already passed through security and attempting to board a flight to Iran with no return ticket. Tariri was born in Iran and, although he has lived in the United States for close to 50 years and has a wife and children here, he had recently spent six months in Iran before his arrest.
At his arraignment in the Boston Municipal Court, Tariri pleaded not guilty to the charges. The judge initially set cash bail at $50,000 but later reduced it to $30,000, which Tariri paid. Along with the monetary bail, the judge imposed several conditions of release, including GPS monitoring. The monitoring system included an inclusion zone, meaning Tariri's movements were restricted to certain geographical areas.
A grand jury subsequently indicted Tariri on numerous charges related to the alleged embezzlement scheme. The case highlights the intersection of constitutional privacy rights and public safety concerns in the pretrial detention system.
Tariri's legal challenge focused on constitutional arguments regarding search and seizure protections and privacy expectations. The case keywords indicate the court considered issues related to Fourth Amendment protections, the reasonable expectation of privacy, and the constitutional limits on pretrial monitoring conditions.
The GPS monitoring requirement represents an increasingly common tool used by courts to balance public safety with a defendant's right to pretrial release. Such electronic monitoring allows defendants to remain in the community while awaiting trial while providing law enforcement with real-time location data to ensure compliance with release conditions.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's decision adds to the body of law governing when courts may impose electronic monitoring as a condition of pretrial release. The court's analysis likely considered factors such as the severity of the charges, the defendant's flight risk, public safety concerns, and the constitutional limits on pretrial detention conditions.
For defendants in similar situations, the ruling suggests that courts have broad discretion to impose GPS monitoring when justified by appropriate factors. The decision is particularly significant for cases involving allegations of financial crimes, where defendants may have access to significant resources that could facilitate flight.
The case also reflects the challenges faced by the legal profession when attorneys are accused of crimes involving their practice. Professional responsibility issues often compound criminal charges in such cases, as attorneys face both criminal prosecution and potential disciplinary action from state bar authorities.
Tariri's case demonstrates how modern technology has expanded the options available to courts in fashioning pretrial release conditions. GPS monitoring provides an alternative to detention while addressing legitimate concerns about flight risk and public safety.
The Commonwealth's allegations suggest a pattern of alleged misconduct spanning multiple clients over an extended period. Such cases often involve complex financial investigations and require prosecutors to trace funds through various accounts and transactions.
The Supreme Judicial Court's brief order affirming the GPS monitoring requirement indicates the court found the lower court's analysis and conclusions legally sound. The decision provides precedent for future cases where defendants challenge electronic monitoring conditions on constitutional grounds.
Looking ahead, Tariri will continue to face the underlying criminal charges while subject to GPS monitoring. The pretrial proceedings highlight the balance courts must strike between protecting defendants' rights and ensuring public safety and court appearance compliance. The case serves as a reminder that even legal professionals are not immune from criminal prosecution when accused of violating their professional duties and the law.