Maine
Maine 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
Maybe you spotted an unfamiliar device tucked under your bumper. Maybe you are wondering whether you can legally slip a tracker onto someone else's car. In Maine, the answer comes down to one of the most direct stalking statutes in the country.
Maine never passed a standalone law about GPS devices on vehicles. Instead, its criminal stalking statute does the work, and it is one of the few in the nation that uses the word "tracks" right in the text.
This guide explains when GPS tracking is legal in Maine, when it becomes the crime of stalking, what employers can do, and what steps to take if you find a tracker on your car.
Is It Legal to Put a GPS Tracker on a Car in Maine?
The short answer: it is legal to put a GPS tracker on a vehicle you own or lease. It is a crime to repeatedly track another person without their consent in a way that causes them serious inconvenience, emotional distress, or fear.
Unlike California or Texas, Maine never passed a statute specifically about electronic tracking devices. The Legislature instead wrote a stalking law broad enough to cover GPS trackers, AirTags, phone location apps, and whatever monitoring technology comes next.
That makes Maine an honest middle ground. Sticking a tracker on someone's truck one time is not, standing alone, the crime of stalking, because stalking requires a course of conduct of two or more acts. The moment tracking becomes a pattern that distresses or frightens the person, you have committed that crime. And in real life, nobody installs a GPS tracker to check a location once.
A single placement is not automatically lawful, though. 33 MRS 2001 makes it a civil violation, with a fine of up to $500, to place a camera or electronic surveillance equipment that records images or data of any kind while unattended outside on the private property of another without the written consent of the landowner.
A tracker left on a car parked in someone's driveway plausibly falls inside that language, and the statute's only vehicle-related exception runs the other way: it protects a camera used to deter theft or vandalism of a motor vehicle that is temporarily parked, not a tracking device. Going onto the property to attach the device can also support a criminal trespass charge.
One more wrinkle. Maine's violation of privacy statute, 17-A MRS 511, covers hidden cameras and secret audio, not GPS devices. If a tracker also records sound or video, that separate law applies too. Our Maine recording laws guide covers those rules.
Maine's Stalking Law Says "Tracks" (17-A MRS 210-A)
Maine's stalking statute, 17-A MRS 210-A, is unusually explicit about location tracking. Most state stalking laws talk about following or surveilling. Maine's lists tracking by name.
![]()
The statute defines a course of conduct as two or more acts in which the actor, "by any action, method, device or means, directly or indirectly" engages in listed conduct, starting with acts where the actor "follows, monitors, tracks, observes, surveils or harasses a person." A GPS unit magnetized under a bumper, an AirTag dropped in a door pocket, and a location-sharing app installed without permission all fit comfortably inside that language.
To convict someone of stalking, a Maine prosecutor must prove three things. First, a course of conduct, which means two or more acts. Second, that the actor engaged in that conduct intentionally or knowingly, directed at or concerning a specific person. Third, that the conduct would cause a reasonable person to suffer serious inconvenience or emotional distress, to fear bodily injury or death for themselves or a close relation, or to fear damage to their property or harm to their animals.
The two-act requirement matters. Planting a tracker is one act. Checking its location feed, showing up where the victim goes, or retrieving and replacing the device are additional acts. Courts and prosecutors treat ongoing electronic monitoring as a continuing pattern, so a tracker that quietly reports a car's location for weeks supplies the course of conduct on its own.
The statute is also kept current: Public Law 2023, chapter 519 expanded the course-of-conduct definition to reach acts of gaining unauthorized access to a person's information.
Who Can Legally Track a Vehicle in Maine
GPS tracking is lawful in Maine in several common situations:
- Your own vehicle. You may install a tracker on a car, truck, or motorcycle that you own or lease, including to deter theft or monitor a vehicle you lend out.
- Fleet and business vehicles. Companies can track vehicles the business owns. Delivery vans, service trucks, and rental cars routinely carry GPS units.
- Your minor children. A parent or legal guardian may track a vehicle their minor child drives. That authority ends when the child turns 18.
- With consent. An adult who agrees to share their location, such as through a family location app, has consented to the tracking.
- Law enforcement with a search warrant. Under 16 MRS 639, an officer may install and monitor a tracking device only in accordance with a valid search warrant issued by a duly authorized justice, judge or justice of the peace. The warrant allows installation within 14 days and monitoring for 30 days, extendable by another 30 days on a judicial finding of continuing probable cause. The United States Supreme Court held in United States v. Jones (2012) that attaching a GPS device to a vehicle is a Fourth Amendment search.
Joint ownership is the gray zone. Putting a tracker on a jointly titled car is not automatically illegal, but ownership is not a defense to stalking. If the tracking is part of a pattern that distresses or frightens an estranged spouse, 17-A MRS 210-A still applies, and family-court judges take secret tracking very seriously.
Can My Employer Track My Car in Maine?
Maine adopted its first employer surveillance law in January 2026. LD 61, An Act to Regulate Employer Surveillance to Protect Workers, enacted as Public Law 2025, chapter 524, takes effect in mid-2026.
Once in force, the law requires employers to tell job applicants during the hiring process that they use electronic surveillance and to give current employees written notice at least once each year. It also bars monitoring an employee's home, property, or personal vehicle unless the job requires it, and it lets employees refuse to install monitoring apps on their personal devices. The Maine Department of Labor enforces the law with civil penalties of $100 to $500 per violation.
The law carves out GPS and vehicle safety systems installed on employer-owned vehicles, so fleet tracking still comes down to ownership and consent. An employer can track its own vehicles, and most do. Courts generally accept tracking of company vehicles during work hours as a legitimate business practice, though continuing to monitor a take-home vehicle around the clock invites privacy claims.
Your personal car is different. An employer who hides a tracker on an employee's private vehicle without consent has no statutory safe harbor. Repeated covert tracking could fall within the stalking statute, and it exposes the employer to a civil invasion of privacy lawsuit. If location monitoring is a condition of your job, it should be disclosed in a policy you have seen and accepted.
AirTags and Item Trackers in Maine
Maine law does not distinguish between a hardwired GPS unit and a $25 Bluetooth tag. An AirTag, Tile, or Samsung SmartTag slipped into someone's car or bag is analyzed the same way under 17-A MRS 210-A: repeated nonconsensual tracking that causes distress or fear is stalking.
![]()
Apple and Google now push unknown-tracker alerts to both iPhone and Android devices, which is how many victims first discover they are being followed. Save screenshots of repeated alerts as evidence.
Cross-border conduct can also trigger federal law. The federal stalking statute, 18 U.S.C. 2261A, makes it a felony to use an electronic device or service to engage in a course of conduct that places a person in fear or causes substantial emotional distress, including tracking that crosses state lines.
Penalties for Illegal GPS Tracking in Maine
| Offense | Classification | Maximum Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Stalking, first offense (17-A MRS 210-A) | Class D crime | Up to 364 days in jail and a $2,000 fine |
| Stalking with a qualifying prior conviction (not limited to prior stalking: it includes violations of protective, tribal, out-of-state and court-approved consent orders under 5 MRS 4659, 15 MRS 321 and 19-A MRS 4113) | Class C felony | Up to 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine, with a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment |
| Stalking directed at 2 or more members of an identifiable group, no prior conviction required | Class C felony | Up to 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine |
| Stalking with a qualifying prior conviction where at least one prior was for group stalking | Class B felony | Up to 10 years in prison, with a longer mandatory minimum |
| Placing unattended recording or surveillance equipment outside on another person's private property without written consent (33 MRS 2001) | Civil violation | Fine of up to $500 |
| Federal stalking (18 U.S.C. 2261A) | Federal felony | Up to 5 years in federal prison, more if injury results |
A stalking conviction also commonly brings probation conditions, no-contact orders, and firearm consequences.
Civil Options and Protection From Harassment Orders
You do not have to wait for a criminal prosecution to make tracking stop.
Maine's protection from harassment law, 5 MRS 4651 et seq., lets any person seek a civil court order against someone whose conduct amounts to harassment, which includes stalking under 17-A MRS 210-A. A judge can order the person to stop all contact and surveillance, and violating the order is itself a crime. For situations involving a current or former partner or household member, a protection from abuse order is the parallel tool. Our Maine restraining order guide walks through both processes.
Money damages are also on the table. Maine recognizes the common-law tort of intrusion upon seclusion, adopted by the state's highest court in Nelson v. Maine Times (Me. 1977). Secretly tracking someone's movements is a textbook intrusion claim, and victims can sue for emotional distress and punitive damages.
What to Do If You Find a Tracker on Your Car in Maine
- Do not destroy it. The device is evidence, and it may carry fingerprints or a registered owner account.
- Photograph everything. Capture the device in place, its serial numbers, and any tracker alerts on your phone.
- Think safety first. Removing the tracker tells whoever placed it that you found it. If you fear them, talk to police before you act.
- Call local police or the Maine State Police. Report it as suspected stalking and give them the device and your documentation.
- Document the pattern. Because Maine requires two or more acts, a log of sightings, alerts, drive-bys, and messages is what turns one creepy device into a chargeable case.
- Ask the court for protection. A protection from harassment or protection from abuse order can prohibit all tracking and contact.
- Sweep the vehicle. A mechanic or counter-surveillance professional can check wheel wells, bumpers, the OBD-II port, and interior pockets for additional devices. Hidden cameras around your home raise separate issues covered in our surveillance camera laws guide.
![]()
For how Maine compares to states with standalone device statutes, see our hub on GPS Tracking Laws by State.
Sources
- 17-A MRS 210-A, Stalking (Maine Legislature)
- 17-A MRS 511, Violation of Privacy (Maine Legislature)
- 16 MRS 639, Tracking Devices and the Search Warrant Requirement (Maine Legislature)
- 33 MRS 2001, Unattended Cameras and Surveillance Equipment on Private Property (Maine Legislature)
- 5 MRS 4651, Protection From Harassment (Maine Legislature)
- LD 61, An Act to Regulate Employer Surveillance to Protect Workers, PL 2025 c. 524 (Maine Legislature)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) (Cornell Legal Information Institute)
- 18 U.S.C. 2261A, Stalking (Cornell Legal Information Institute)
Disclaimer: This article is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Laws change, and how they apply depends on your specific facts. If you are dealing with a stalking situation or a criminal charge, talk to a licensed Maine attorney, and call 911 if you are in immediate danger.
More Maine Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I put a GPS tracker on my spouse's car in Maine?
Not safely. Secret tracking that becomes a pattern and causes distress is criminal stalking under 17-A MRS 210-A, and ownership of a jointly titled car is not a defense. Secret tracking can also support a protection order and hurt you badly in a divorce case.
Is placing a tracker one time a crime in Maine?
A single act is not by itself stalking, because the statute requires a course of conduct of two or more acts. It is not automatically legal either. Leaving equipment that records data unattended outside on another person's private property without the landowner's written consent is a civil violation under 33 MRS 2001, carrying a fine of up to $500, and going onto the property to attach it can support a criminal trespass charge. Ongoing monitoring through the device also supplies the additional stalking acts quickly, and civil liability for invasion of privacy does not require a pattern.
Is it legal to track my teenager's car in Maine?
Yes. A parent or legal guardian may use a GPS tracker on a vehicle driven by their minor child. Once the child turns 18, they are an adult and normal consent rules apply.
Can my employer GPS track me in Maine?
Employers can track vehicles the company owns, and Maine's new employer surveillance law, LD 61, exempts GPS on employer-owned vehicles. Starting in mid-2026 that law requires notice of electronic monitoring and bars surveillance of your personal vehicle unless your job requires it. Hiding a tracker on your personal car without consent can lead to stalking charges and a privacy lawsuit.
Are AirTags illegal in Maine?
Owning and using an AirTag to find your own keys or luggage is legal. Planting one on another person or their car and repeatedly tracking them without consent is treated the same as any GPS tracker and can be charged as stalking.
Do police need a warrant to put a GPS tracker on my car in Maine?
Yes, and specifically a search warrant. Maine law, 16 MRS 639, lets an officer install and monitor a tracking device only in accordance with a valid search warrant issued by a duly authorized justice, judge or justice of the peace, not a lesser court order. United States v. Jones held that attaching a GPS device to a vehicle is a Fourth Amendment search.
Can a private investigator legally use a GPS tracker in Maine?
Maine's stalking statute has no exemption for private investigators. A PI can track a vehicle with its owner's consent, but covertly tracking a third party's car carries the same stalking and civil privacy risks as anyone else.
Updates
Corrected the police standard under 16 MRS 639 to a search warrant rather than a court order, added Maine's 33 MRS 2001 limit on leaving unattended recording equipment on another person's property, and broadened the felony-stalking triggers to match 17-A MRS 210-A.
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.
Maine Revised Statutes, Title 17-A: MAINE CRIMINAL CODE, Part 2: SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES, Chapter 9: OFFENSES AGAINST THE PERSON
§ 210-AStalkingIn force
1. A person is guilty of stalking if: A. The actor intentionally or knowingly engages in a course of conduct directed at or concerning a specific person that would cause a reasonable person: (1) To suffer serious inconvenience or emotional distress; (2) To fear bodily injury or to fear bodily injury to a close relation; (3) To fear death or to fear the death of a close relation; (4) To fear damage or destruction to or tampering with property; or (5) To fear injury to or the death of an animal owned by or in the possession and control of that specific person. Violation of this paragraph is a Class D crime; [PL 2015, c. 357, §1 (AMD).] B. [PL 2001, c. 383, §12 (RP); PL 2001, c. 383, §156 (AFF).] C. The actor violates paragraph A and has one or more prior convictions in this State or another jurisdiction. Notwithstanding section 2, subsection 3‑B, as used in this paragraph, "another jurisdiction" also includes any Indian tribe. Violation of this paragraph is a Class C crime. In determining the sentence for a violation of this paragraph the court shall impose a sentencing alternative pursuant to section 1502, subsection 2 that includes a term of imprisonment.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-26 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.maine.gov
Cited in 18 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Maine courts have applied 17-A M.R.S. section 210-A to repeated unwanted contact. State of Maine v. Jacob R. Labbe Sr. rejected an as-applied vagueness challenge to its course of conduct definition, noting a 2007 amendment reached past physical following; State v. Elliott held the ban is a reasonable regulation of travel.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Robert M.A. Nadeau v. Lynnann Frydrych (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine 2014, 108 A.3d 1254)“…of Maine’s stalking statute, 5 M.R.S. § 4651(2)(C) (2014); 17-A M.R.S § 210-A (2014).1 Na…”
- State v. Elliott (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine 2010, 987 A.2d 513)✓A man repeatedly parked along his ex-girlfriend's commute and once tailed her car on the turnpike; the court affirmed his stalking conviction, holding section 210-A conduct is not protected travel and that jurors need not agree on each act in the course of conduct.
- Gina M. Childs v. Robert A. Ballou Jr. (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine 2016, 148 A.3d 291)✓An ex-husband sent floods of combative emails and repeatedly sent police to his ex-wife's home for well-being checks; the court affirmed the extension of her protection order and saw no error in the finding that those checks amounted to stalking under section 210-A.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Maine Revised Statutes, Title 16: COURT PROCEDURE -- EVIDENCE, Chapter 3: RECORDS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS
§ 639Authority to install and monitor a tracking deviceIn force
1. Application. This subchapter only applies to tracking devices that are placed by law enforcement officers. 2. Installation and monitoring. A law enforcement officer may install and monitor a tracking device only in accordance with a valid search warrant issued by a duly authorized justice, judge or justice of the peace using procedures established pursuant to Title 15, section 55 or 56 or as otherwise provided in this subchapter. 3. Authorization of use. A court empowered to issue a search warrant or other order for the installation of a tracking device may authorize the use of that device within the jurisdiction of the court and outside that jurisdiction if the device is installed within the jurisdiction of the court. 4. Time period. A justice, judge or justice of the peace may issue a search warrant authorizing the installation and monitoring of a tracking device pursuant to this section. The warrant must require the installation of the tracking device within 14 days of the issuance of the warrant and allow the tracking device to be monitored for a period of 30 days following installation.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.maine.gov
Maine Revised Statutes, Title 17-A: MAINE CRIMINAL CODE, Part 2: SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES, Chapter 21: OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER
§ 511Violation of privacyIn forcecited in 15 of our articles
1. A person is guilty of violation of privacy if, except in the execution of a public duty or as authorized by law, that person intentionally: A. Commits a civil trespass on property with the intent to overhear or observe any person in a private place; [PL 1997, c. 467, §1 (AMD).] B. Installs or uses in a private place without the consent of the person or persons entitled to privacy in that place, any device for observing, photographing, recording, amplifying or broadcasting sounds or events in that place; [PL 1997, c. 467, §1 (AMD).] C. Installs or uses outside a private place without the consent of the person or persons entitled to privacy therein any device for observing, photographing, hearing, recording, amplifying or broadcasting images or sounds originating in that place that would not ordinarily be visible, audible or comprehensible outside that place; [PL 2023, c. 227, §1 (AMD).] D.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.maine.gov
Cited in 6 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):In State of Maine v. Mark W. Strong Sr. (2013) the Maine Supreme Judicial Court read section 511(1)(B) to require an objectively reasonable expectation of being safe from surveillance, and held that people who entered a place solely to engage a prostitute were not persons entitled to privacy there.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State of Maine v. Mark W. Strong Sr. (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine 2013, 60 A.3d 1286)✓A man faced 45 counts of violation of privacy for recording the clients of a Kennebunk prostitute; the Law Court held that people present solely to engage a prostitute were not 'persons entitled to privacy' there, so the indictment failed to charge the offense.
- Friedman v. Public Utilities Commission (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine 2012, 48 A.3d 794)“…statutes: 17-A M.R.S. § 402(1) (2011) (criminal trespass), 17-A M.R.S. § 511 (2011) (criminal violation of privacy),…”
- Cuso Mortgage Corp. v. Gauthier (Superior Court of Maine 2012)“…e counts of criminal invasion of privacy, presumably under 17-A M.R.S. § 511(1)(B), for allegedly filming sexual act…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Maine Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent, § 710 and § 511, Maine Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026), Maine Laws on Recording in Public: Your Complete Guide (2026)
Maine Revised Statutes, Title 5: ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES AND SERVICES, Part 12: HUMAN RIGHTS, Chapter 337-A: PROTECTION FROM HARASSMENT
§ 4651DefinitionsIn force
As used in this chapter, unless the context otherwise indicates, the following terms have the following meanings. [PL 1987, c. 515, §1 (NEW).] 1. Court. "Court" means any District Court and, with regard to section 4659, the tribal court of the Passamaquoddy Tribe or the Penobscot Nation. 2. Harassment. "Harassment" means: A. Three or more acts of intimidation, confrontation, physical force or the threat of physical force directed against any person, family or business that are made with the intention of causing fear, intimidation or damage to personal property and that do in fact cause fear, intimidation or damage to personal property; [PL 2025, c. 400, §1 (AMD).] B. [PL 2011, c. 559, Pt. C, §2 (RP).] C. A single act or course of conduct constituting a violation of section 4681; Title 14, section 9102; Title 17, section 2931; or Title 17‑A, section 201, 202, 203, 204, 207, 208, 209, 210, 210‑A, 211, 253, 254, 255‑A, 256, 258, 259‑A, 259‑B, 260, 261, 282, 283, 301, 302, 303, 506, 506‑A, 511, 511‑A, 556, 802, 805, 806, 852 or 853; or [PL 2025, c. 400, §1 (AMD); PL 2025, c. 417, §1 (AMD).] D.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.maine.gov
Cited in 25 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2020
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Robert M.A. Nadeau v. Lynnann Frydrych (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine 2014, 108 A.3d 1254)“…led to allege three or more acts of harassment pursuant to 5 M.R.S. § 4651(2)(A) (2014) or, alternatively, by fai…”
- Cates v. Donahue (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine 2007, 916 A.2d 941)“…ppeal, the relevant definition of harassment is provided in 5 M.R.S. § 4651(2)(A) (2006), which states: 2. Harass…”
- Smith v. Welch (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine 1994, 645 A.2d 1130)“…Welch on Smith’s complaint for protection from harassment. 5 M.R.S.A. §§ 4651 to 4660-A (1989 & Supp. 1993). Finding…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
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
- 17-A MRS 210-A, Stalking(mainelegislature.org)
- 17-A MRS 511, Violation of Privacy(mainelegislature.org)
- 16 MRS 639, Tracking Devices and the Search Warrant Requirement(mainelegislature.org)
- 5 MRS 4651, Protection From Harassment(mainelegislature.org)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012)(law.cornell.edu)
- 18 U.S.C. 2261A, Stalking(law.cornell.edu)
- LD 61, Employer Surveillance, PL 2025 c. 524(legislature.maine.gov)
- 33 MRS 2001, Unattended Cameras and Surveillance Equipment on Private Property(legislature.maine.gov)