Idaho
Idaho 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
Here is the uncomfortable truth: Idaho has no law that makes it a crime to put a GPS tracker on someone else's car. No statute mentions tracking devices, AirTags, or electronic location monitoring of a private vehicle.
That makes Idaho one of the weakest states in the country for tracking victims. In most states, secretly attaching a tracker to a car you do not own is itself a crime. In Idaho, prosecutors have to fit the conduct into the general stalking statute, and a single hidden tracker often does not qualify.
This guide explains what Idaho law actually covers, when tracking crosses into criminal stalking under Idaho Code 18-7906, why the state's wiretap law does not help, and what you can do if you find a tracker on your vehicle. It is part of our GPS Tracking Laws by State series.
Is It Legal to Put a GPS Tracker on a Car in Idaho?
If the car is yours, yes. If the car belongs to someone else, the honest answer is that Idaho law does not clearly say no.
There is no Idaho statute that prohibits installing a tracking device on another person's vehicle. The legislature has never passed one, and nothing in the 2024 through 2026 sessions changed that. A jealous ex who slips an AirTag into a door pocket has not committed a device-placement crime in Idaho the way they would in California, Texas, or even neighboring Utah.
That does not mean tracking someone is consequence-free. If the tracking is part of a repeated pattern that seriously alarms the victim and would cause a reasonable person substantial emotional distress, or that would make a reasonable person fear death or physical injury, it can support a stalking charge. And federal law applies regardless of what Idaho's code says.
But the gap is real, and it matters most for victims. A police officer looking at a single discovered tracker, with no other harassment, often has no Idaho crime to charge.
Idaho Has No Tracking Device Statute
At least a majority of states now have a statute that directly addresses electronic tracking devices. Some make unauthorized placement a standalone crime. Others fold GPS tracking into their stalking laws by name.
Idaho has done neither. Search Title 18 of the Idaho Code and you will not find the phrase "tracking device" in any criminal prohibition aimed at private individuals. The only place tracking devices appear in the relevant chapters is in a definition that excludes them from the wiretap law, which is covered below.
This leaves Idaho in a small group of gap states where the legality of planting a tracker turns entirely on indirect theories: stalking, trespass if the installer entered private property, or a civil privacy lawsuit after the fact.
When Tracking Becomes Stalking (Idaho Code 18-7906)
The workhorse statute is stalking in the second degree, Idaho Code 18-7906. A person commits it by knowingly and maliciously engaging in a course of conduct that seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses the victim and that would cause a reasonable person substantial emotional distress, or a course of conduct that would cause a reasonable person to fear death or physical injury for themselves or a family or household member. Prong one is conjunctive: the subjective effect on the victim alone is not enough without the objective reasonable-person element.
![]()
Two pieces of the statute matter for GPS tracking.
First, "course of conduct" means repeated acts of nonconsensual contact. One act is not enough. A single tracker, discovered once, may not satisfy the statute unless prosecutors can show ongoing monitoring or other contacts that form a pattern.
Second, the definition of nonconsensual contact includes following the victim or "maintaining surveillance, including by electronic means," on the victim. That phrase is how GPS tracking gets into the statute. Continuous monitoring through a hidden tracker, combined with showing up where the victim goes, sending messages that reveal knowledge of their movements, or other contact, can add up to a chargeable course of conduct.
Stalking in the second degree is a misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in county jail and a fine of up to $1,000.
Stalking in the first degree, Idaho Code 18-7905, is a felony version that applies when aggravating factors are present: the conduct violates a protection order, no contact order, or injunction; the defendant possessed a deadly weapon; the victim is under 16; or the defendant has a stalking conviction within the past seven years, among others. It carries one to five years in state prison and a fine of up to $10,000.
Why Idaho's Wiretap Law Does Not Apply
Some victims assume the state's electronic surveillance law must cover GPS trackers. It does not, and the exclusion is explicit.
Idaho Code 18-6702 makes it a felony to intercept wire, electronic, or oral communications. But the definitions section, Idaho Code 18-6701, defines "electronic communication" to exclude "any communication from a tracking device, as defined in 18 U.S.C. section 3117."
In plain English, the data a GPS tracker sends is carved out of the wiretap law on purpose. The legislature borrowed that carve-out from the federal Wiretap Act, which treats tracking devices as a separate category. So a prosecutor cannot use the interception statute against someone who planted a tracker, no matter how invasive the monitoring was.
Who CAN Legally Track a Vehicle in Idaho
Even in a gap state, some tracking is clearly lawful:
- Your own vehicle. You can put a tracker on a car titled in your name, including a car your teenager or another family member drives.
- Co-owned vehicles. If your name is on the title alongside a spouse or partner, tracking the shared vehicle is generally lawful as an exercise of your ownership interest, though it can still become evidence in a stalking case if it is part of a harassing pattern.
- Fleet and business vehicles. A company can track vehicles it owns or leases.
- Lenders and buy-here-pay-here dealers. Financing agreements often include consent to a GPS unit for repossession purposes.
- Law enforcement with a warrant. After United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012), police installation of a GPS tracker on a vehicle is a Fourth Amendment search and generally requires a warrant.
The riskiest territory is a vehicle titled solely in someone else's name, even a spouse's. Idaho has no statute saying that tracking it is a crime, but it is exactly the fact pattern that turns into a stalking charge, a protection order, or a civil suit when the relationship is hostile.
Can My Employer Track My Car in Idaho?
Idaho has no statute regulating employer GPS tracking, and no law requires an employer to notify you or get consent.
Company-owned vehicles are the easy case. An employer can track its own property, on or off the clock, although most use policies that limit monitoring to work hours.
Personal vehicles are murkier. No Idaho law stops an employer from asking you to install a tracking app or device on your own car for mileage or dispatch purposes, but they cannot plant one secretly without inviting an invasion of privacy claim. If your employer wants to track your personal vehicle, get the policy in writing and make sure the tracking is limited to working time.
AirTags and Item Trackers
Apple AirTags, Tiles, and similar Bluetooth trackers fall into the same gap as hardwired GPS units. Idaho has no statute that addresses them.
![]()
The platform-level protections are often a victim's best early warning. iPhones alert you when an unknown AirTag is traveling with you, Apple's Tracker Detect app does the same on Android, and Google's unknown tracker alerts are built into modern Android phones. An unwanted tracker alert is worth taking seriously and documenting immediately.
If an AirTag is used as part of repeated monitoring and harassment, it can support an 18-7906 stalking charge exactly like a dedicated GPS device. Federal prosecutors have also charged AirTag stalking under 18 U.S.C. 2261A.
Penalties at a Glance
| Offense | Statute | Level | Penalty |
|---|---|---|---|
| Placing a GPS tracker on another person's car | None | Not a crime in Idaho | No direct penalty |
| Stalking in the second degree | Idaho Code 18-7906 | Misdemeanor | Up to 1 year in jail, fine up to $1,000 |
| Stalking in the first degree | Idaho Code 18-7905 | Felony | 1 to 5 years in prison, fine up to $10,000 |
| Federal stalking (electronic surveillance) | 18 U.S.C. 2261A | Federal felony | Up to 5 years in prison (more if injury results) |
Civil Options for Tracking Victims
Idaho also has no statute creating a civil cause of action for unauthorized tracking. Victims are left with common-law claims.
The closest fit is the privacy tort of intrusion upon seclusion: an intentional intrusion into someone's private affairs that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. Idaho courts recognize the invasion of privacy torts, and weeks of secret location monitoring is the kind of conduct the intrusion tort was built for. Trespass to chattels is another option if the installer attached hardware to your vehicle.
A civil protection order is often the more practical tool. If the tracking is part of stalking or domestic violence, Idaho courts can issue orders prohibiting contact and surveillance, and violating one elevates future stalking to a felony. Our Idaho restraining order guide walks through the process.
What to Do If You Find a Tracker on Your Car
- Do not destroy it. The device is evidence, and its serial number can identify the buyer.
- Photograph everything. Capture the device in place, then its markings and serial number.
- Call local police or the county sheriff. Ask them to document the device and request the account records from the manufacturer. Even without a device statute, the report builds the course-of-conduct record a stalking charge needs.
- Write down the pattern. Note every time someone showed up where you were or knew things they should not have known. Repetition is what makes 18-7906 chargeable.
- Consider a protection order. An order changes the legal landscape: continued tracking afterward supports felony stalking in the first degree.
- Get a mechanic to sweep the vehicle. Hardwired trackers hide behind bumpers, under dashboards, and in wheel wells.
![]()
If your situation also involves secret audio or video recording, see our Idaho recording laws guide and our overview of surveillance camera laws.
Sources
- Idaho Code 18-7906, Stalking in the Second Degree
- Idaho Code 18-7905, Stalking in the First Degree
- Idaho Code 18-6701, Definitions (tracking device exclusion)
- Idaho Code 18-6702, Interception and Disclosure of Communications
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012)
- 18 U.S.C. 2261A, Federal Stalking Statute
- 18 U.S.C. 3117, Mobile Tracking Devices
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Laws change, and how they apply depends on your specific situation. If you are dealing with unwanted tracking or stalking, contact local law enforcement and consult a licensed Idaho attorney.
More Idaho Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it illegal to put a GPS tracker on someone's car in Idaho?
Not by itself. Idaho has no statute criminalizing the placement of a tracking device on another person's vehicle. It can become illegal as part of a stalking course of conduct under Idaho Code 18-7906, and federal stalking law may also apply.
Can I put a tracker on my spouse's car in Idaho?
If the car is titled in your name or jointly titled, tracking it is generally lawful. If it is titled solely in your spouse's name, no Idaho statute forbids it, but the tracking can become evidence in a stalking case or a protection order proceeding, and it can support a civil invasion of privacy claim.
Is AirTag stalking a crime in Idaho?
There is no AirTag-specific law. Using an AirTag to repeatedly monitor someone can be charged as stalking under Idaho Code 18-7906 if it is part of a course of conduct that seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses the victim and would cause a reasonable person substantial emotional distress, or that would cause a reasonable person to fear death or physical injury. Federal charges under 18 U.S.C. 2261A are also possible.
Why doesn't Idaho's wiretap law cover GPS trackers?
Idaho Code 18-6701 defines electronic communication to exclude any communication from a tracking device as defined in 18 U.S.C. 3117. That carve-out means the interception felony in 18-6702 cannot be used against someone who planted a GPS tracker.
Can my employer track my car in Idaho?
Idaho has no employer GPS statute. Employers can freely track company-owned vehicles. Tracking your personal vehicle without consent is not directly prohibited, but it invites a civil invasion of privacy claim, so most employers require written consent.
Do police need a warrant to put a GPS tracker on my car?
Generally yes. In United States v. Jones (2012), the Supreme Court held that attaching a GPS device to a vehicle and monitoring it is a Fourth Amendment search, so police installation normally requires a warrant.
What are the penalties for stalking with a GPS device in Idaho?
Stalking in the second degree is a misdemeanor with up to one year in jail and a $1,000 fine. It becomes felony stalking in the first degree, with one to five years in prison, if aggravators apply, such as violating a protection order, a prior stalking conviction within seven years, or a victim under 16.
Has Idaho considered a GPS tracking law?
As of the 2026 legislative session, Idaho has not enacted a statute addressing electronic tracking devices. Victims' advocates have pointed to the gap, but the legislature has not passed device-placement legislation.
Updates
Corrected the description of second-degree stalking under Idaho Code 18-7906 to include the required reasonable-person substantial-emotional-distress element.
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
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.
Idaho Code
§ 18-7906Stalking in the second degreeIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
18-7906. Stalking in the second degree. (1) A person commits the crime of stalking in the second degree if the person knowingly and maliciously: (a) Engages in a course of conduct that seriously alarms, annoys or harasses the victim and is such as would cause a reasonable person substantial…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-26 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.idaho.gov
Cited in 14 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):State v. Desiree B. Eliasen (2015) held appearing at the victim's home and then following her were two acts of nonconsensual contact under section 18-7906, which lists following or maintaining surveillance, including by electronic means. State v. Stewart (2010) held felony stalking needs acts distinct from a prior 18-7906 conviction.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Stewart (Idaho Supreme Court 2010, 149 Idaho 383)✓A man already convicted of misdemeanor stalking was charged with felony stalking of the same victim; the Idaho Supreme Court held the acts proving the section 18-7906 course of conduct must differ from those underlying the earlier conviction, and vacated the judgment.
- State v. Desiree B. Eliasen (Idaho Supreme Court 2015, 158 Idaho 542)✓A driver waited outside a woman's home and then followed her to a store and toward the police station; the Idaho Supreme Court held that appearing at the residence plus following the victim were at least two nonconsensual contacts forming a course of conduct.
- State v. Smith (Idaho Supreme Court 2025, 569 P.3d 137)✓A man followed a police dispatcher home and weeks later parked near her house taking photographs; the Idaho Supreme Court held those were at least two nonconsensual contacts under the statute, supporting probable cause to arrest for second-degree stalking.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Idaho Employee Monitoring Laws (2026): What Employers Can Track, Idaho Laws on Recording in Public: Photography, Filming, and Audio Rights (2026)
§ 18-7905Stalking in the first degreeIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
18-7905. Stalking in the first degree. (1) A person commits the crime of stalking in the first degree if the person violates section 18-7906, Idaho Code, and: (a) The actions constituting the offense are in violation of a temporary restraining order, protection order, no contact order or…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-01 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.idaho.gov
Cited in 19 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Stewart (Idaho Supreme Court 2010, 149 Idaho 383)“…he victim.‖ Idaho Code § 18-7906(2)(a). The felony statute, Idaho Code § 18-7905, requires: (a) that the defendant commi…”
- State v. Jeppesen (Idaho Supreme Court 2002, 138 Idaho 71)“…rwin Jeppesen with the offense of stalking in violation of Idaho Code § 18-7905 . The victim of the alleged stalking wa…”
- State v. Rafael Galvan (Idaho Court of Appeals 2014, 156 Idaho 379)“…f conviction and sentence for stalking in the first degree, Idaho Code § 18-7905, and aggravated assault with a deadly w…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Idaho Video Recording Laws: Rules for Filming, Surveillance, and Privacy (2026)
§ 18-6701Definitions. Definitions as used in this chapter:In forcecited in 5 of our articles
18-6701. Definitions. Definitions as used in this chapter: (1) "Wire communication" means any aural transfer made in whole or in part through the use of facilities for the transmission of communications by the aid of wire, cable, or other like connection between the point of origin and the point of…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-01 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.idaho.gov
Cited in 3 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Hoskins v. Howard (Idaho Supreme Court 1998, 132 Idaho 311)“…and recovery of reasonable attorney fees. I.C. § 18-6709. Idaho Code § 18-6701 provides the following definitions:…”
- Chapman v. NYK LINE NORTH AMERICA, INC. (Idaho Supreme Court 2009, 147 Idaho 178)“…erviews between them. Idaho’s Communications Security Act, Idaho Code §§ 18-6701 to 6725, specifically declares it to b…”
- Project Veritas v. Michael Schmidt (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2023, 72 F.4th 1043)“…Hawaii v. Graham, 780 P.2d 1103, 1110 (Haw. 1989) Idaho: Idaho Code Ann. §§ 18-6701(2), 18-6702(1)(a), (2)(d) Illinois: 720…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Idaho Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026), Idaho Phone Call Recording Laws: Consent Rules for Landline, Cell, and VoIP (2026), Idaho Smart Glasses Recording Laws: One-Party Consent
§ 18-6702Interception and disclosure of wire, electronic or oral communications prohibitedIn forcecited in 21 of our articles
18-6702. Interception and disclosure of wire, electronic or oral communications prohibited. (1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter, any person shall be guilty of a felony and is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for a term not to exceed five (5) years or by a…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.idaho.gov
Cited in 6 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2019
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Idaho courts have applied section 18-6702 to intercepted phone calls. Hoskins v. Howard (1998) held cordless telephone conversations are protected wire communications, so scanning, recording and disclosing one supported a claim. Chapman v. NYK Line North America (2009) noted 18-6702(2)(d) makes one-party-consent recording lawful.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Hoskins v. Howard (Idaho Supreme Court 1998, 132 Idaho 311)✓A sheriff's deputy used a scanner to record a neighbor's cordless call and passed the tape on; the court held such calls are protected wire communications when part of the call crosses the phone network, so Section 18-6702 reached him, and vacated summary judgment in his favor.
- Chapman v. NYK LINE NORTH AMERICA, INC. (Idaho Supreme Court 2009, 147 Idaho 178)“…rsation with the consent of one party to the conversation. Idaho Code § 18-6702 (2)(d). Of course, an employer could im…”
- Bartnicki v. Vopper (Supreme Court of the United States 2001, 532 U.S. 514)“…16-11-66.1 (1996); Haw. Rev. Stat. § 803-42 (1993); Idaho Code § 18-6702 (1997); Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 720, § 5…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Idaho Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, Idaho Security Camera Laws: Home, Business, and Surveillance Rules (2026), Idaho Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights, HIPAA, and One-Party Consent (2026)
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)
§ 3117Mobile tracking devicesIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
If a court is empowered to issue a warrant or other order for the installation of a mobile tracking device, such order may authorize the use of that device within the jurisdiction of the court, and outside that jurisdiction if the device is installed in that jurisdiction. As used in this section, the term “tracking device” means an electronic or mechanical device which permits the tracking of the movement of a person or object.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 92 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- In Re Application for Pen Register & Trap/Trace Device With Cell Site Location Authority (District Court, S.D. Texas 2005, 396 F. Supp. 2d 747)“…of tracking devices which may move across district lines. 18 U.S.C. § 3117 (a). The ECPA was not intended to affec…”
- In Re the United States for an Order Authorizing the Use of a Pen Register & a Trap & Trace Device (District Court, E.D. New York 2005, 396 F. Supp. 2d 294)“…the rules applicable to a “tracking device” as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 3117 (b). That is because the additional inf…”
- In re the United States for an Order Authorizing Disclosure of Location Information of a Specified Wireless Telephone (District Court, D. Maryland 2011, 849 F. Supp. 2d 526)“…g device warrant pursuant to Rule 41(b) and in accord with 18 U.S.C. § 3117 . As set forth more fully below, this C…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Wyoming 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
- Idaho Code 18-7906, Stalking in the Second Degree(legislature.idaho.gov)
- Idaho Code 18-7905, Stalking in the First Degree(legislature.idaho.gov)
- Idaho Code 18-6701, Definitions, electronic communication excludes tracking devices(legislature.idaho.gov)
- Idaho Code 18-6702, Interception and Disclosure of Wire, Electronic or Oral Communications(legislature.idaho.gov)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012), slip opinion(supremecourt.gov)
- 18 U.S.C. 2261A, federal stalking statute(law.cornell.edu)
- 18 U.S.C. 3117, mobile tracking devices(law.cornell.edu)