Florida Makes Using a GPS Tracker or AirTag to Aid a Violent Crime a Second-Degree Felony

Cheap location trackers have become a fixture of stalking and domestic-violence cases, and Florida has responded by sharply raising the stakes for using one to help commit a violent crime. A state law that took effect on October 1, 2025 makes that conduct a second-degree felony, putting it on par with some of the most serious offenses in the criminal code.

The measure, Senate Bill 1168, was approved by Governor Ron DeSantis on May 22, 2025. It is recorded as Chapter 2025-71, Laws of Florida.

Information last verified on June 20, 2026.

What SB 1168 Actually Changes

SB 1168 amends Florida Statutes section 934.425, the statute governing the installation and use of tracking devices and tracking applications. That statute already prohibited a person from knowingly installing or placing such a device or application on another person's property without consent, and from using one to determine the location or movement of another person or their property without consent.

The new law adds an aggravated tier on top of that baseline. As enacted in Florida Statutes section 934.425, it provides that "a person who violates this section to commit a dangerous crime or to facilitate the commission of a dangerous crime as defined in s. 907.041(5)(a) commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084."

In plain terms, ordinary nonconsensual tracking stays a third-degree felony, but tracking done to commit or facilitate a serious, enumerated crime jumps two grades to a second-degree felony.

How Big the Penalty Jump Is

The step up in felony class is significant. Under Florida Statutes section 775.082, a third-degree felony carries a maximum of five years in prison, while a second-degree felony carries a maximum of 15 years. SB 1168 therefore roughly triples the ceiling on potential incarceration when a tracker is used to advance a dangerous crime.

The baseline third-degree felony is itself recent. Before a 2024 amendment, nonconsensual tracking under section 934.425 was a second-degree misdemeanor. Lawmakers raised it to a third-degree felony, and SB 1168 then layered the new aggravated second-degree felony on top.

That two-step escalation in barely a year signals how seriously the Legislature now treats covert tracking, particularly in the hands of an abuser or a predator.

What Counts as a Tracking Device or App

The statute's definitions are deliberately broad. Section 934.425 defines a "tracking device" as "any device whose primary purpose is to reveal its location or movement by the transmission of electronic signals," and a "tracking application" as "any software program whose primary purpose is to track or identify the location or movement of an individual."

That language sweeps in the obvious hardware, such as magnetic GPS units stuck under a bumper, and the consumer Bluetooth tags that have driven much of the recent concern. It also captures phone-based stalkerware whose core function is pinpointing where someone is.

Because the offense turns on installing, placing, or using such a tool without consent, the focus is on the lack of permission and, for the new tier, the criminal purpose behind it. You can read a fuller overview of how these rules fit together on our hub for GPS tracking laws across the United States.

Which Crimes Trigger the Felony Bump

The enhanced penalty applies only when the tracking is done "to commit a dangerous crime or to facilitate the commission of a dangerous crime as defined in s. 907.041(5)(a)." That cross-reference matters, because it ties the bump to a defined list rather than to any offense.

Section 907.041(5)(a) enumerates dangerous crimes that include arson, aggravated assault, aggravated battery, kidnapping, sexual battery, child abuse, aggravated stalking, domestic violence under certain conditions, home-invasion robbery, and several others. Using a tracker to set up one of these offenses is what converts the conduct into a second-degree felony.

The drafting reflects the real-world pattern prosecutors describe, in which an abuser tags a partner's car or bag to find them, then commits assault, stalking, or worse. The law targets the use of surveillance technology as a tool of a larger violent crime.

A National Trend, Not a Florida Outlier

Florida is far from alone. States are increasingly writing electronic trackers directly into their criminal codes rather than leaving the question to general stalking or privacy law.

Ohio is a clear example. Its Senate Bill 100 enacted a new section of the Revised Code, codified at section 2903.216, that generally prohibits knowingly installing a tracking device or application on another person's property without consent, and failing to remove it after consent is revoked. According to the Ohio Senate, the offense is a first-degree misdemeanor that can rise to a fourth-degree felony in aggravating circumstances, with exceptions for parents tracking minor children, caregivers, law enforcement, and certain business uses. The new crime took effect in 2025. Our state guide breaks down how this plays out in Ohio's GPS tracking laws.

Other states reach similar conduct through their stalking statutes. Utah, for instance, addresses nonconsensual tracking primarily through its stalking and electronic-communication-harassment framework, and state lawmakers have continued to push, as of early 2026, to spell out tracking-device prohibitions more explicitly. Our overview of Utah's GPS tracking laws explains how those provisions currently operate.

The Fourth Amendment Backdrop

These state laws regulate private conduct, but the broader legal story includes a landmark constitutional ruling on government tracking. In United States v. Jones, the U.S. Supreme Court held in 2012 that attaching a GPS device to a vehicle and using it to monitor the vehicle's movements is a "search" under the Fourth Amendment.

That decision required police, in most circumstances, to obtain a warrant before installing a GPS tracker on a suspect's car. It did not, by itself, criminalize private tracking between individuals, which is the gap that statutes like Florida's SB 1168 and Ohio's SB 100 are now filling.

The two layers work together. Jones constrains what the state may do without a warrant, while the new statutes set the rules, and the penalties, for what private people may do to one another with the same technology.

Analysis: Why This Matters

The following analysis reflects the views of the Recording Law Editorial Team.

SB 1168 is a focused, intent-driven escalation, and that focus is its strength. The Legislature did not blanket-criminalize every form of location tracking. It left the baseline third-degree felony in place for ordinary nonconsensual tracking and reserved the harsher second-degree felony for cases where the tracker is a tool of a defined dangerous crime. That structure aims the heaviest punishment at the most dangerous behavior.

The pace of change is the part worth watching. In a span of roughly a year, Florida moved nonconsensual tracking from a second-degree misdemeanor to a third-degree felony, and then added an aggravated second-degree felony tier. That trajectory tells you the Legislature views covert trackers, including consumer Bluetooth tags, as a serious and growing threat in stalking and domestic-violence cases rather than a novelty.

The broader pattern across states suggests this is becoming a baseline expectation rather than an outlier. When Florida and Ohio, with different statutory styles, both move to name electronic trackers in their criminal codes, it signals that the older approach of squeezing tracking into general stalking or privacy law is giving way to purpose-built offenses. We would expect more states to follow with their own versions.

Readers should not treat this article as legal advice. Whether any particular use of a tracker violates section 934.425, and which penalty tier applies, is a fact-specific question for prosecutors and courts. Anyone facing a charge, or worried that a tracker has been placed on their property, should consult a licensed attorney in their state.