Lifetime Electronic Monitoring in Michigan: Who Gets It and What It Involves

Lifetime electronic monitoring (sometimes called a lifetime tether) is part of the sentence for certain Michigan criminal sexual conduct (CSC) convictions. It is required for first-degree CSC, except where the sentence is life without the possibility of parole, and for second-degree CSC where the contact was committed by a person 17 or older against a child under 13.^[3][2] It begins when the person is released on parole or from prison and lasts until death.^[1]

This page explains who is covered, how the program works, what it costs, what happens if the device is tampered with, and what Michigan courts have and have not decided about its constitutionality.

Which convictions carry lifetime electronic monitoring?

Three statutes have to be read together.

• MCL 750.520b(2)(d) (first-degree CSC) says that, in addition to any other penalty imposed under subdivision (a) or (b), the court shall sentence the defendant to lifetime electronic monitoring.^[3]
• MCL 750.520c(2)(b) (second-degree CSC) requires it if the violation involved sexual contact committed by an individual 17 years of age or older against an individual less than 13 years of age.^[3]
• MCL 750.520n(1) says a person convicted under either statute for criminal sexual conduct committed by an individual 17 or older against an individual under 13 shall be sentenced to lifetime electronic monitoring as provided in the Corrections Code.^[7]

Read alone, MCL 750.520n(1) mentions only cases with an offender 17 or older and a child under 13.^[7] In People v Comer (2017) the Michigan Supreme Court resolved the question for first-degree CSC: lifetime electronic monitoring "must be imposed for all defendants convicted of CSC-I except where the defendant has been sentenced to life without the possibility of parole."^[2]

Conviction	Is lifetime monitoring required?
First-degree CSC, any ages	Yes, under Comer[2]
First-degree CSC with a sentence of life without parole under MCL 750.520b(2)(c)	No; this is the exception Comer identified[2]
Second-degree CSC, actor 17 or older and victim under 13	Yes[3]
Second-degree CSC in other circumstances	Not required by MCL 750.520c(2)(b), which applies only to that age combination[3]

The statutes that impose lifetime monitoring are the first- and second-degree CSC statutes.^[3][7] The elements of those offenses are covered in first-degree CSC and second-degree CSC.

Monitoring is added to the prison sentence; it does not replace it. First-degree CSC is punishable by life or any term of years, and where the offense was committed by a person 17 or older against a child under 13 the term may not be less than 25 years.^[8][9] A person 18 or older convicted of first-degree CSC against a child under 13 who has a prior conviction for first-, second-, third- or fourth-degree CSC or assault with intent to commit CSC against a child under 13 (or a substantially corresponding federal or other-state offense) must be sentenced to life without the possibility of parole.^[10] A second or subsequent offense under the first-, second- or third-degree statutes carries a mandatory minimum of at least 5 years.^[11] See mandatory minimum sentences for CSC.

What is the monitoring program?

The Corrections Code directs the Department of Corrections to track, by electronic means, the movement and location of each monitored individual from the time the individual is released on parole or from prison until the time of the individual's death. "Electronic monitoring" means a device by which, through global positioning system satellite or other means, an individual's movement and location are tracked and recorded.^[1]

The person must wear or carry the device and reimburse the department for the cost. While the person is still on parole, reimbursement is governed by the parole statutes; after discharge from parole, the rate is $60.00 per month for as long as the person is still subject to monitoring.^[4]

The statutes read for this guide do not describe the equipment the department uses, how it is charged or serviced, or where a monitored person may or may not go. Those are matters of department practice that this page does not cover.

When does it start?

Monitoring runs from release on parole or from prison.^[1] In People v Kern (2010) the Court of Appeals read the statutes to mean that lifetime electronic monitoring "applies only to persons who have been released on parole or from prison, or both."^[12]

A different, shorter form of monitoring exists for parolees. For a parolee convicted of first- or second-degree CSC who is not subject to lifetime monitoring, the parole board may require electronic monitoring, but it continues only for the duration of the term of parole, and a violation is a violation of a condition of parole, not a felony.^[13] Parole is explained in prison, parole and sex-offender treatment.

What happens if the device is removed or the fee is not paid?

MCL 750.520n(2) creates a separate crime. A person sentenced to lifetime electronic monitoring commits a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both, by doing any of the following:^[5]

• Intentionally removing, defacing, altering, destroying or failing to maintain the device in working order.^[5]
• Failing to notify the Department of Corrections that the device is damaged.^[5]
• Failing to reimburse the department or its agent for the cost of the monitoring.^[5]

A prison term for that offense may run consecutively to a term imposed for another violation arising from the same transaction.^[5] How consecutive terms work is explained in consecutive sentences in CSC cases.

What must the judge say before a plea?

Before accepting a guilty or no-contest plea, the court must advise the defendant of the maximum possible prison sentence and any mandatory minimum sentence required by law, "including a requirement for mandatory lifetime electronic monitoring under MCL 750.520b or 750.520c."^[14] In People v Cole (2012) the Michigan Supreme Court explained why: mandatory lifetime electronic monitoring is part of the sentence itself, so due process requires the trial court to inform a defendant entering a plea that he or she will be subject to it.^[14]

Plea procedure in these cases is covered in plea bargains in CSC cases and, more generally, in the sister guide's page on guilty and no-contest pleas.

What if the sentence left monitoring out?

A judgment of sentence is invalid if the court was required to impose lifetime electronic monitoring and did not.^[15] In Comer itself, the Supreme Court held that once the judgment had been entered the trial court lacked authority to correct the invalid sentence without a motion from one of the parties. The court rule was then amended, effective September 1, 2018, to allow a court to correct an invalid sentence on its own initiative within six months of entry, after giving the parties at least 14 days' notice and an opportunity to be heard.^[15][16]

As the rule now stands, a court may correct an invalid sentence on a party's motion, and a correction on the court's own initiative must occur within six months of the invalid judgment's entry.^[15][17]

Is lifetime electronic monitoring constitutional?

The question has been argued on two grounds: that attaching a tracking device for life is an unreasonable search, and that it is cruel or unusual punishment.

Court of Appeals: People v Hallak (2015)

The Court of Appeals held that placing an electronic monitoring device on a person to monitor movement is a search for purposes of the Fourth Amendment, but that lifetime electronic monitoring for a defendant 17 or older convicted of second-degree CSC involving a minor under 13 is not unreasonable. The same decision rejected that defendant's as-applied and facial challenges under the state constitution's ban on cruel or unusual punishment, and his federal claim.^[18] The Supreme Court later reversed Hallak in part on other grounds.^[19] Hallak is a Court of Appeals decision about a second-degree CSC conviction.^[18]

Michigan Supreme Court: People v Kardasz (December 19, 2025)

In Kardasz the defendant challenged his sentence to lifetime monitoring, arguing that it violates his state and federal constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and that it is an unconstitutionally cruel and/or unusual punishment. The Court's opinion states: "We deny leave to appeal on these challenges related to LEM."^[6] The Court therefore did not decide those questions either way: it neither upheld lifetime monitoring nor found it unconstitutional.^[6]

In the same case the Court did rule on sex offender registration, holding that the 2021 registration law is punishment but is not cruel or unusual.^[6] That ruling concerns the registry, not the monitoring device; it is covered in the court rulings that reshaped the registry.

What people get wrong

• "The Supreme Court upheld lifetime GPS monitoring" or "the Supreme Court struck it down." Neither is accurate. In Kardasz it denied leave to appeal on the monitoring challenges.^[6]
• "It only applies when the child was under 13." That limit is in the second-degree CSC statute; for first-degree CSC, Comer requires monitoring for all defendants except those sentenced to life without parole.^[3][2]
• "Monitoring is the same thing as the registry." They are separate. Monitoring is imposed under the CSC statutes and run by the Department of Corrections.^[3][1] Registration is a different law with its own tiers and time periods, described in the sex offender registry explained.
• "Missing a payment is just a debt." Failing to reimburse the cost of monitoring is listed in MCL 750.520n(2) alongside tampering with the device.^[5]