California
California GPS Tracking Laws: Is It Legal to Put a Tracker on a Car? (2026)
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited June 17, 2026). · Law checked current as of August 9, 2026. How we verify our legal content
A working GPS tracker costs less than a tank of gas, and most people never find the one hidden on their car. California saw this problem coming before almost anyone else. Penal Code 637.7, on the books since 1999, was one of the first laws in the country written specifically to criminalize electronic vehicle tracking, and it is still one of the strictest.
This guide is part of our GPS Tracking Laws by State series. It explains who can legally track a vehicle in California, what happens to people who track illegally, and the $5,000 civil claim available to victims.
Is It Legal to Put a GPS Tracker on a Car in California?
In most situations, no. Penal Code 637.7 states that no person or entity in California may use an electronic tracking device to determine the location or movement of a person.
The statute contains only two exceptions:
- Consent of the registered owner, lessor, or lessee of the vehicle the device is attached to
- Lawful use by a law enforcement agency
If you do not fit one of those exceptions, attaching a tracker to someone's car is a crime. Here is how that plays out in common scenarios:
- Your own car: Legal. You are the registered owner.
- Your spouse's car, registered only in their name: Illegal without their consent.
- A jointly registered car: Penal Code 637.7 does not apply to a registered owner, but stalking laws still can. More on this below.
- Your teenager's car: Legal only if you are the registered owner.
- An employee's personal car: Illegal without the employee's consent.
- A private investigator tracking for a client: Illegal, with license consequences on top.
Penal Code 637.7: California's Tracking Device Law
The statute defines an electronic tracking device as any device attached to a vehicle or other movable thing that reveals its location or movement by the transmission of electronic signals.
That definition is deliberately broad. It covers magnetic battery-powered trackers stuck in a wheel well, devices plugged into the OBD port, hardwired fleet units, and item trackers like AirTags attached to a bag or jacket. The phrase "or other movable thing" means the law is not limited to cars.
A violation is a misdemeanor. Under California's default misdemeanor rules, that means up to six months in county jail, a fine of up to $1,000, or both.
One important detail: the crime is using a device to track a person. Tracking your own stolen property to recover it is a different situation than secretly following your ex around town.
There is a federal layer too. In United States v. Jones (2012), the U.S. Supreme Court held that attaching a GPS device to a vehicle and monitoring its movements is a Fourth Amendment search. So even the law enforcement exception in 637.7 generally requires a warrant or other lawful authority.
Who Can Legally Track a Vehicle in California
The Registered Owner Rule
![]()
Everything in Penal Code 637.7 turns on vehicle registration. The consent that matters belongs to the registered owner, lessor, or lessee. Driving a car every day does not give you the power to consent, and it does not protect someone who tracks you if your name is on the registration.
Spouses, Divorce, and Jointly Registered Cars
This is the nuance that decides most real-world disputes. If a car is registered to both spouses, each one is a registered owner. A spouse who puts a tracker on a jointly registered car has the consent of a registered owner (themselves), so Penal Code 637.7 does not prohibit it.
That does not make spousal tracking safe. Criminal stalking under Penal Code 646.9, the civil stalking tort under Civil Code 1708.7, and any active restraining order can all still apply. Family court judges also take covert tracking seriously in custody and divorce proceedings.
If the car is registered solely in your spouse's name, putting a tracker on it without their consent is a misdemeanor, full stop.
Parents and Teen Drivers
Parents may track a minor's vehicle only if the parent is the registered owner, lessor, or lessee. If you bought the car and registered it in your name, you can install a tracker. If the car is registered to your child, even a minor child, the statute's exception does not cover you.
Private Investigators Get No Pass
California gives private investigators zero exemption from the tracking law. Penal Code 637.7 expressly states that a violation by a person licensed under Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code is grounds for revoking that license.
A PI who plants a tracker in a cheating-spouse case risks a criminal conviction and their livelihood. And hiring a PI to do the tracking does not insulate the client from civil liability under Penal Code 637.2.
Can My Employer Track My Car in California?
It depends on whose car it is.
Company vehicles: The employer is usually the registered owner, so basic GPS fleet tracking is generally lawful. California privacy norms still favor written notice, and tracking employees during off-duty personal use of a vehicle invites claims.
Digital license plates: AB 984 (2022) legalized digital and other alternative license plates statewide, and it wrote employee protections directly into Vehicle Code 4854. An employer using an alternative device with GPS may monitor an employee only during work hours, and only if monitoring is strictly necessary to the performance of the employee's duties. The employer must give written notice describing the specific activities monitored, and the employee has the right to disable monitoring outside work hours without retaliation. Violations carry a $250 civil penalty for the first offense and $1,000 per employee per violation per day after that.
Your personal car: An employer who hides a tracker on an employee's personal vehicle without consent violates Penal Code 637.7 like anyone else. You are the registered owner, and your consent is the only one that counts.
If a workplace device also captures conversations, that triggers a separate set of rules. California requires all-party consent for confidential communications, which we cover in our California recording laws guide.
AirTags and Item Trackers
Apple AirTags, Tiles, and Samsung SmartTags fit squarely within Penal Code 637.7. The statute covers devices attached to "a vehicle or other movable thing," so an AirTag dropped into a purse, slipped into a jacket pocket, or taped inside a bumper counts.
California prosecutors have charged AirTag stalking cases under both 637.7 and the stalking statute, Penal Code 646.9. Stalking applies when someone willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person and makes a credible threat intended to place the victim in reasonable fear for their safety.
Federal law reaches this conduct too. Under 18 U.S.C. 2261A, using an electronic device to surveil someone with intent to harass or intimidate, in a way that causes substantial emotional distress, is a federal stalking offense when interstate elements are present.
Both iPhone and Android now push unwanted-tracker alerts when an unknown AirTag travels with you. Treat those alerts seriously and check the section below on what to do if you find one.
Penalties for Illegal GPS Tracking in California
| Violation | Law | Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Using an electronic tracking device on a person | Penal Code 637.7 | Misdemeanor: up to 6 months county jail and/or $1,000 fine |
| Tracking by a licensed private investigator | Penal Code 637.7 + Bus. & Prof. Code Div. 3 | Misdemeanor plus grounds for license revocation |
| Criminal stalking via tracker | Penal Code 646.9 | Up to 1 year county jail as a misdemeanor; up to 3 years state prison as a base felony, up to 4 years when committed in violation of a restraining order, or up to 5 years for repeat qualifying offenses |
| Employer misuse of digital plate tracking | Vehicle Code 4854 | $250 first violation; $1,000 per employee per violation per day after |
| Civil liability to the victim | Penal Code 637.2 | Greater of $5,000 per violation or 3x actual damages, plus possible injunction |
![]()
Stalking becomes a felony with prior offenses or when committed in violation of a restraining order, and penalties climb sharply from there.
Suing for Illegal Tracking: The $5,000 Civil Action
Penal Code 637.2 gives victims a private right of action against anyone who violates California's Invasion of Privacy Act, including the tracking statute. The recovery is the greater of $5,000 per violation or three times the amount of actual damages.
Two features make this claim unusually powerful:
- No proof of actual damages required. The statute says it is not a prerequisite that the plaintiff suffered, or be threatened with, actual damages. The $5,000 is available simply because the violation happened.
- Per-violation stacking. Plaintiffs argue that ongoing tracking involves many violations, not one, which can multiply the statutory figure quickly.
Victims can also seek an injunction ordering the tracking to stop, in the same lawsuit.
Separately, Civil Code 1708.7 creates a civil stalking tort. It applies when a defendant engages in a pattern of conduct intended to follow, alarm, place under surveillance, or harass the plaintiff, the plaintiff reasonably feared for their safety or suffered substantial emotional distress, and the defendant made a credible threat or violated a restraining order. That tort allows general, special, and punitive damages.
Connected Cars and Domestic Violence: SB 1394
Modern cars are tracking devices with seats. An abuser with access to a connected-car app can see the vehicle's location, lock and unlock doors, and remote-start the engine from anywhere.
SB 1394 (2024) attacks this directly. The law, codified in Vehicle Code sections 28200 and following, requires connected-vehicle manufacturers to provide a process for a driver to terminate another person's remote access to the vehicle. The core requirement took effect July 1, 2025. SB 719 (2026) later expanded the chapter, effective June 30, 2026.
Key protections for survivors:
- The disconnection process must be secure and user-friendly, with confirmation of the request.
- The manufacturer cannot charge a fee or require the consent of the person being cut off.
- Vehicle Code 28240 and 28242 require an in-vehicle control that immediately disables connected vehicle location access. It must be prominently located and easy to use, and it cannot require a remote or online app, account creation, a password, or login information.
- Vehicle Code 28244 provides that disabling location access from inside the car must not send the account holder any alert, email, text, or phone call.
- Those in-vehicle requirements phase in under Vehicle Code 28246: on or before July 1, 2027 for 2027 model year and older vehicles unless technologically infeasible, as soon as practicable after sale for 2028 through 2030 model year vehicles, and for all vehicles beginning with the 2031 model year. A separate requirement in Vehicle Code 28202, that a vehicle clearly indicate to anyone inside it when location access is enabled, applies beginning with the 2031 model year.
If you are dealing with an abuser who is tracking you, pairing an SB 1394 disconnection request with a protective order is often the right move. Our guide to California restraining order laws walks through the process.
What to Do If You Find a Tracker on Your Car
- Document it before touching it. Photograph the device where you found it: wheel well, under the bumper, beneath a seat, or plugged into the OBD port under the dash.
- Think about safety first. If you suspect a violent ex or partner placed it, removing it immediately can alert them. Consider contacting police or a domestic violence advocate before you act.
- Report it. Illegal tracking is a misdemeanor, and a police report creates the paper trail you will need for criminal charges, a restraining order, or a civil suit.
- Check your accounts too. Look at phone location sharing, connected-car apps, and shared family accounts. SB 1394 lets you cut off remote vehicle access through the manufacturer.
- Talk to a lawyer about Penal Code 637.2. With $5,000 per violation on the table and no requirement to prove actual damages, attorneys take these cases.
![]()
If you are also worried about cameras pointed at your home or parking spot, see our guide to surveillance camera laws.
Sources
- Cal. Penal Code 637.7 - Electronic tracking devices
- Cal. Penal Code 637.2 - Civil action for invasion of privacy
- Cal. Vehicle Code 4854 - Employee monitoring limits for alternative devices (AB 984)
- SB 1394 (2024) - Connected vehicle service: access by survivors
- Cal. Vehicle Code 28202 - In-vehicle indication that location access is enabled
- Cal. Vehicle Code 28242 - Requirements for the in-vehicle disabling mechanism
- Cal. Vehicle Code 28244 - No notification to the account holder on disabling
- Cal. Vehicle Code 28246 - Operative dates for in-vehicle location controls
- Cal. Penal Code 646.9 - Stalking
- Cal. Civil Code 1708.7 - Civil stalking tort
- 18 U.S.C. 2261A - Federal stalking statute
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012)
Disclaimer: This article is legal information, not legal advice. Laws change and every situation is different. If you are dealing with illegal tracking, stalking, or a family law dispute involving a GPS device, consult a licensed California attorney. If you are in immediate danger, call 911.
More California Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it illegal to put a GPS tracker on my spouse's car in California?
If the car is registered only in your spouse's name, yes. Tracking it without their consent is a misdemeanor under Penal Code 637.7. If the car is jointly registered to both of you, the statute's registered-owner exception applies and 637.7 is not violated, but stalking laws, restraining orders, and the civil stalking tort can still create criminal and civil exposure.
Can I put a GPS tracker on my teenager's car?
Only if you are the registered owner, lessor, or lessee of the vehicle. If you bought the car and it is registered in your name, tracking it is legal. If the car is registered to your teen, the Penal Code 637.7 exception does not cover you, even though they are your child.
Can a private investigator legally use a GPS tracker in California?
No. California gives private investigators no exemption from Penal Code 637.7. A PI who attaches a tracker commits a misdemeanor, and the statute makes the violation grounds for revoking their license under Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code. Clients who hire the PI can face civil liability under Penal Code 637.2.
Is it illegal to put an AirTag in someone's bag or car in California?
Yes, if you use it to track a person without the required consent. Penal Code 637.7 covers any device attached to a vehicle or other movable thing, which includes AirTags in bags, jackets, and bumpers. Depending on the conduct, criminal stalking charges under Penal Code 646.9 and federal stalking charges under 18 U.S.C. 2261A are also possible.
Can my employer track my personal car?
Not without your consent. Your employer is not the registered owner of your personal vehicle, so hiding a tracker on it violates Penal Code 637.7. Employers can generally track company-owned vehicles, and under Vehicle Code 4854 any tracking through digital license plates must be limited to work hours, strictly necessary to your duties, disclosed in writing, and disableable off the clock.
How much can I sue for if someone illegally tracked me?
Penal Code 637.2 allows the greater of $5,000 per violation or three times your actual damages, and you do not need to prove any actual damages to recover. Ongoing tracking may count as multiple violations. A separate civil stalking claim under Civil Code 1708.7 can add general, special, and punitive damages in serious cases.
Do police need a warrant to put a GPS tracker on a car?
Generally yes. Penal Code 637.7 exempts only the lawful use of tracking devices by law enforcement, and the U.S. Supreme Court held in United States v. Jones (2012) that attaching a GPS device to a vehicle and monitoring it is a Fourth Amendment search, which ordinarily requires a warrant.
Can I remove a GPS tracker I find on my car?
If you own the car, you can remove a device someone hid on it. Photograph it in place first, since the device and its location are evidence for a police report, a restraining order, or a Penal Code 637.2 lawsuit. If you suspect a dangerous person placed it, talk to police or a domestic violence advocate before removing it, because removal can tip them off.
Updates
Updated the connected-vehicle section to the current law: SB 719 (2026) replaced the old phase-in dates, so the in-vehicle location controls now run on a 2027 to 2031 model year schedule, and we added the rule that disabling location access from inside the car does not alert the account holder.
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected the stalking penalties table to show Penal Code 646.9's full felony range (up to 4 years for a restraining-order violation, up to 5 years for repeat offenses), not just the flat 3-year base figure.
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
California Penal Code
§ 637.7In forcecited in 3 of our articles
(a) No person or entity in this state shall use an electronic tracking device to determine the location or movement of a person. (b) This section shall not apply when the registered owner, lessor, or lessee of a vehicle has consented to the use of the electronic tracking device with respect to that vehicle. (c) This section shall not apply to the lawful use of an electronic tracking device by a law enforcement agency. (d) As used in this section, “electronic tracking device” means any device attached to a vehicle or other movable thing that reveals its location or movement by the transmission of electronic signals. (e) A violation of this section is a misdemeanor. (f) A violation of this section by a person, business, firm, company, association, partnership, or corporation licensed under Division 3 (commencing with Section 5000) of the Business and Professions Code shall constitute grounds for revocation of the license issued to that person, business, firm, company, association, partnership, or corporation, pursuant to the provisions that provide for the revocation of the license as set forth in Division 3 (commencing with Section 5000) of the Business and Professions Code.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-26 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Cited in 17 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):California courts have applied Penal Code 637.7 to GPS trackers. Simmons v. Bauer Media Group USA, LLC held a suit over an investigator's tracker was not protected newsgathering under the anti-SLAPP statute; People v. Agnelli, a superior court appellate division, reversed a tracking conviction as vague for a consenting co-owner.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- People v. Agnelli (California Court of Appeal 2021)✓A man placed a GPS tracker on a car he co-owned with his estranged wife and was convicted under section 637.7(a); the court reversed, holding the statute unconstitutionally vague as applied because it does not say whether every registered co-owner must consent.
- Simmons v. Bauer Media Group USA, LLC (California Court of Appeal 2020)✓A tabloid publisher's hired private investigator put a tracker on Richard Simmons's caretaker's car; the court held the claims, built on that section 637.7 violation, arose from illegal conduct rather than protected newsgathering, and left the anti-SLAPP denial in place.
- The People v. Barnes (California Court of Appeal 2013, 216 Cal. App. 4th 1508)✓Police pinged a robbery victim's stolen cell phone with her consent and stopped the man carrying it; the court decided the case on Fourth Amendment grounds and cited section 637.7 only as instructive, noting its exceptions for owner consent and lawful law enforcement use.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: California Employee Monitoring Laws: Employer Rules (2026), GPS Tracking Laws by State: Is It Legal to Put a Tracker on a Car? (2026)
§ 637.2In forcecited in 20 of our articles
(a) Any person who has been injured by a violation of this chapter may bring an action against the person who committed the violation for the greater of the following amounts: (1) Five thousand dollars ($5,000) per violation. (2) Three times the amount of actual damages, if any, sustained by the plaintiff. (b) Any person may, in accordance with Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 525) of Title 7 of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, bring an action to enjoin and restrain any violation of this chapter, and may in the same action seek damages as provided by subdivision (a). (c) It is not a necessary prerequisite to an action pursuant to this section that the plaintiff has suffered, or be threatened with, actual damages. (d) This section shall not be construed to affect Title 4 (commencing with Section 3425.1) of Part 1 of Division 4 of the Civil Code.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Cited in 103 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Ribas v. Clark (1985) held the section 637.2 award accrues at the moment of the Privacy Act violation, so the Civil Code section 47 litigation privilege does not bar it, though damages flowing solely from privileged testimony fail. Kimmel v. Goland (1990) applied that reasoning to recordings made in anticipation of litigation.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Rubin v. Green (California Supreme Court 1993, 4 Cal. 4th 1187)“…asion of privacy and related torts as well as damages under Penal Code section 637.2, granting persons injured by eavesdropp…”
- Ribas v. Clark (California Supreme Court 1985, 38 Cal. 3d 355)✓A wife asked a third party to listen on an extension phone while she called her husband, and that listener later testified about it; the court held the judicial privilege barred damages from the testimony but not Section 637.2's fixed award, which accrues at the violation.
- Kimmel v. Goland (California Supreme Court 1990, 51 Cal. 3d 202)✓Mobilehome residents secretly taped calls with park management to gather evidence for a planned lawsuit; the court held the litigation privilege did not bar management's Section 637.2 claim, because the injury came from the recording itself and not from any publication.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: US Recording Laws by State (2026): All 50 States Explained, Can an Employer Record Conversations Without Consent? (2026), Can I Sue Someone for Recording Me on Private or Public Property?
§ 646.9In forcecited in 2 of our articles
(a) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or willfully and maliciously harasses another person and who makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear for their safety, or the safety of their immediate family, is guilty of the crime of stalking, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment, or by imprisonment in the state prison. (b) Any person who violates subdivision (a) when there is a temporary restraining order, injunction, or any other court order in effect prohibiting the behavior described in subdivision (a) against the same party, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Cited in 249 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- People v. Shelton (California Supreme Court 2006, 37 Cal. Rptr. 3d 354)“…one count of stalking in violation of a protective order (Pen. Code, § 646.9, subd. (b)), two counts of making a cri…”
- In Re Brittany K. (California Court of Appeal 2005, 26 Cal. Rptr. 3d 487)“…bd. (b)(1).) Criminal "stalking" is similarly identified in Penal Code section 646.9 with following or harassing another per…”
- People v. Ogle (California Court of Appeal 2010, 185 Cal. App. 4th 1138)“…lations order (Pen. Code, § 273.6, subd. (d)) and stalking (Pen. Code, § 646.9, subd. (b)). Appellant admitted that he…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: California Laws on Recording in Public: What Is Legal (2026)
California Civil Code
§ 1708.7In force
(a) A person is liable for the tort of stalking when the plaintiff proves all of the following elements of the tort: (1) The defendant engaged in a pattern of conduct the intent of which was to follow, alarm, place under surveillance, or harass the plaintiff. In order to establish this element, the plaintiff shall be required to support his or her allegations with independent corroborating evidence. (2) As a result of that pattern of conduct, either of the following occurred: (A) The plaintiff reasonably feared for his or her safety, or the safety of an immediate family member. For purposes of this subparagraph, “immediate family” means a spouse, parent, child, any person related by consanguinity or affinity within the second degree, or any person who regularly resides, or, within the six months preceding any portion of the pattern of conduct, regularly resided, in the plaintiff’s household. (B) The plaintiff suffered substantial emotional distress, and the pattern of conduct would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Cited in 30 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- In Re Brittany K. (California Court of Appeal 2005, 26 Cal. Rptr. 3d 487)“…Rptr.2d 425 .) Thus, "the tort of stalking" is defined in Civil Code section 1708.7 as "a pattern of conduct the intent of…”
- Sonoma County Human Services Department v. Ellen J. (California Court of Appeal 2005, 127 Cal. App. 4th 1497)“…th at p. 139 .) Thus, “the tort of stalking” is defined in Civil Code section 1708.7 as “a pattern of conduct the intent of…”
- Quintero v. Weinkauf (California Court of Appeal 2022)“…st element in this instruction omitted the requirement from Civil Code section 1708.7, subdivision (a)(1) that a plaintiff “s…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
California Vehicle Code
§ 4854In force
(a) The department shall establish a program authorizing an entity to issue devices as alternatives to the conventional license plates, stickers, tabs, and registration cards authorized by this code, subject to all of the following requirements: (1) The alternative device is subject to the approval of the department and the Department of the California Highway Patrol and shall not be used in lieu of a device issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles until that approval has been granted. (2) (A) Except as specifically authorized in subparagraph (B), an alternative device shall not include vehicle location technology. (B) (1) (i) Vehicle location technology may be offered for vehicles registered as fleet vehicles, pursuant to Article 9.5 (commencing with Section 5301), commercial vehicles, as defined in Section 260, and those operating under an occupational license, pursuant to Division 5 (commencing with Section 11100).
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
United States Code Title 18
§ 2261AStalkingIn forcecited in 53 of our articles
Whoever— travels in interstate or foreign commerce or is present within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or enters or leaves Indian country, with the intent to kill, injure, harass, intimidate, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person, and in the course of, or as a result of, such travel or presence engages in conduct that— places that person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to— that person; an immediate family member (as defined in section 115) of that person; a spouse or intimate partner of that person; or the pet, service animal, emotional support animal, or horse of that person; or causes, attempts to cause, or would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress to a person described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of subparagraph (A); or with the intent to kill, injure, harass, intimidate, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person, uses the mail, any interactive computer service or electronic communication service or electronic communication system of interstate commerce, or any other…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 350 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Federal appeals courts have construed and upheld Section 2261A. United States v. Walker (2011) read in the course of, or as a result of such travel disjunctively, so pre-travel threats plus resulting fear sufficed. United States v. Amy Gonzalez (2018) held it neither overbroad nor vague and no First Amendment violation as applied.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- United States v. Walker (Court of Appeals for the First Circuit 2011, 665 F.3d 212)✓After emailing threats to his estranged wife, the defendant flew from Michigan to Puerto Rico and was arrested on arrival. The court read the disjunctive phrase in 2261A(1) to cover travel that itself places the target in reasonable fear, and upheld the stalking conviction.
- United States v. Amy Gonzalez (Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 2018, 905 F.3d 165)✓Relatives waged a years-long campaign against a mother that ended in a courthouse shooting. The court held 2261A is neither overbroad nor vague because it reaches harassing conduct, and that the mental states it lists are alternative means, not elements; convictions affirmed.
- United States v. Wills (Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 2003, 346 F.3d 476)✓A burglary suspect pursued the witness who identified him at a preliminary hearing; the witness later died. The court held the evidence met each element of 2261A: travel from D.C. to Virginia, intent to harm or harass, and reasonable fear of death; conviction affirmed.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Alabama GPS Tracking Laws: Is It Legal to Put a Tracker on a Car? (2026), Colorado GPS Tracking Laws: Is It Legal to Put a Tracker on a Car? (2026), Florida GPS Tracking Laws: Is It Legal to Put a Tracker on a Car? (2026)
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- Cal. Penal Code 637.7 - Electronic tracking devices(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov)
- Cal. Penal Code 637.2 - Civil action for invasion of privacy(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov)
- Cal. Vehicle Code 4854 - Employee monitoring limits (AB 984)(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov)
- SB 1394 (2024) - Connected vehicle service: access by survivors(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov)
- Cal. Penal Code 646.9 - Stalking(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov)
- Cal. Civil Code 1708.7 - Civil stalking tort(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov)
- 18 U.S.C. 2261A - Federal stalking statute(law.cornell.edu)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012)(law.cornell.edu)
- Cal. Vehicle Code 28202 - In-vehicle indication that location access is enabled (2031 model year)(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov)
- Cal. Vehicle Code 28242 - Requirements for the in-vehicle disabling mechanism(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov)
- Cal. Vehicle Code 28244 - No notification to the account holder on disabling(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov)
- Cal. Vehicle Code 28246 - Operative dates for in-vehicle location controls(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov)