Maryland
Maryland 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 gadget zip-tied under your rear bumper. Maybe you are tempted to slip a tracker onto someone's car to confirm a suspicion. In Maryland, the law treats those situations very differently, and the wrong choice can mean up to five years behind bars.
Maryland has no statute that makes attaching a GPS device to a car a standalone crime. Instead, secret location tracking is prosecuted under the state's stalking law, Md. Criminal Law 3-802, which expressly covers pursuing someone "through the use of a device that can pinpoint or track the location of another without the person's knowledge or consent."
This guide explains when vehicle tracking is legal in Maryland, when it becomes criminal stalking, why the state's famous two-party consent wiretap law does not apply to GPS, and what to do if you find a tracker on your car.
Is It Legal to Put a GPS Tracker on a Car in Maryland?
The short answer: it is legal to put a GPS tracker on a vehicle you own or lease. It is a crime to use a tracker to follow another person's movements without their knowledge or consent when that tracking is part of a malicious course of conduct that frightens them or causes serious emotional distress.
Maryland never passed a law that bans the physical act of planting a tracker on someone else's car. That gap does not make secret tracking safe. The General Assembly solved the problem a different way, by writing location-tracking devices directly into the stalking statute.
In practice, three questions decide which side of the line you are on. Whose vehicle is it? Did the person being tracked know about and agree to the tracking? And why are you doing it? A landscaping company watching its own trucks is running a business. Someone secretly following an ex's hatchback around Baltimore is committing a crime.
Maryland's Stalking Law and Its Tracking Device Clause (Crim. Law 3-802)
The statute that matters is Md. Criminal Law 3-802. It defines stalking as a malicious course of conduct that includes approaching or pursuing another person, and since 2022 it has spelled out that pursuing someone "through the use of a device that can pinpoint or track the location of another without the person's knowledge or consent" counts.
A GPS puck under a bumper, an AirTag dropped in a bag, and a location-sharing app installed on a phone without permission all fit that language.
Tracking alone is not the whole offense. The course of conduct must be one where the tracker knows, or reasonably should know, that it would place the victim in reasonable fear of serious bodily injury, assault, rape or a sexual offense, false imprisonment, or death, or fear that a third person will suffer one of those harms. The statute also reaches conduct that would cause the victim serious emotional distress.
The tracking language is recent. In 2022, the General Assembly passed House Bill 148, which rewrote the definition of stalking to cover conduct that occurs in person, through electronic communication, or through a device that can pinpoint or track another person's location. It took effect on October 1, 2022. An earlier 2016 amendment had already extended the statute to conduct that causes serious emotional distress, so stalking in Maryland now plainly covers monitoring that happens through technology, not just someone physically lurking outside a home.
The statute contains three built-in exceptions. It does not apply to conduct performed to ensure compliance with a court order, conduct performed to carry out a specific lawful commercial purpose, or conduct that is authorized, required, or protected by local, state, or federal law.
Why Maryland's Wiretap Law Does Not Cover GPS
Maryland is famous for its strict two-party consent rule. Under Courts and Judicial Proceedings 10-402, it is a felony to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication without the consent of all parties.
People often assume that law makes GPS tracking illegal too. It does not. The Wiretap Act punishes the interception of communications. A silent GPS tracker intercepts nothing. It transmits its own location data and never listens to a conversation or captures a message, so it falls outside the statute entirely.
That distinction matters if you are choosing a device. A plain GPS tracker raises stalking questions. A tracker with a built-in microphone that captures audio inside the car raises felony wiretap exposure on top of them. Our guide to Maryland recording laws covers the consent rules for audio in detail.
Who Can Legally Track a Vehicle in Maryland
Some tracking is clearly lawful in Maryland:
- Your own vehicle. You can put a tracker on a car you own or lease, including a vehicle you share with a spouse, though tracking an estranged spouse on a jointly titled car can still feed a stalking case if the conduct turns threatening.
- Parents of minors. A parent or guardian tracking a car driven by their minor child is acting with lawful authority and is not engaged in a malicious course of conduct.
- Fleet and commercial operators. The statute's exception for a specific lawful commercial purpose covers businesses tracking their own vehicles, lenders using GPS on financed cars, and telematics programs drivers sign up for.
- Court-order compliance. Tracking performed to ensure compliance with a court order is exempt.
- Law enforcement with a warrant. 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 generally need a warrant.
What is never covered: tracking an ex, a dating partner, a neighbor, or anyone else's personal vehicle without their knowledge or consent as part of conduct that frightens them or wears them down emotionally.
Can My Employer Track My Car in Maryland?
Maryland has no statute that specifically regulates employer GPS tracking, and the stalking law's lawful commercial purpose exception gives employers room to track their own fleet.
Company vehicle? Your employer can track it, and most fleet operators do. Disclosure is good practice but not legally required by a Maryland tracking statute.
Your personal car is different. An employer that secretly plants a tracker on an employee's private vehicle is not protecting company property, and the commercial purpose exception is a poor fit for off-the-clock surveillance of someone's personal movements. That conduct invites a stalking charge and an invasion of privacy lawsuit.
If a work vehicle also has cameras, our guide to surveillance camera laws explains the separate rules for video monitoring.
AirTags and Item Trackers in Maryland
Apple AirTags, Tile trackers, and Samsung SmartTags are covered by the same rule as a hardwired GPS unit. Criminal Law 3-802 speaks of any "device that can pinpoint or track the location of another," and a coin-sized Bluetooth tracker slipped into a purse, jacket, or wheel well fits squarely.
Maryland prosecutors do not need to prove the device was expensive or sophisticated. They need to show a malicious course of conduct, lack of knowledge or consent, and the fear or serious emotional distress element.
Using an AirTag to find your own stolen luggage is lawful. Hiding one on a person you are not supposed to contact is evidence in a criminal case.
Penalties for Illegal GPS Tracking in Maryland
| Conduct | Charge | Maximum Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Tracking someone's location as part of a malicious course of conduct | Stalking, Md. Criminal Law 3-802 (misdemeanor) | Up to 5 years in prison, a $5,000 fine, or both |
| Stalking committed alongside other crimes | Same, with consecutive sentencing allowed | The stalking sentence can run consecutive to any other sentence |
| Interstate stalking or electronic monitoring across state lines | Federal stalking, 18 U.S.C. 2261A | Up to 5 years in federal prison, more if the victim is injured |
Do not let the word misdemeanor fool you. Most states cap misdemeanors at a year. Maryland's stalking misdemeanor carries a five-year maximum, which matches the felony exposure many other states attach to the same conduct, and judges can stack it on top of related convictions.
Federal law adds another layer. 18 U.S.C. 2261A makes it a federal crime to use an electronic communication service or electronic communication system in a course of conduct that places someone in reasonable fear or causes substantial emotional distress, including across state lines, which is easy to trigger in a state that borders Washington, DC, Virginia, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.
Peace Orders and Civil Options
If someone is tracking you, Maryland gives you civil tools alongside the criminal process.
A peace order under Courts and Judicial Proceedings 3-1503 is available against people who are not family or household members, such as an ex you never lived with, a coworker, or a neighbor. Stalking and harassment are qualifying acts, and the court can order the person to stay away and have no contact. For family and intimate-partner situations, a protective order is the parallel tool. Our guide to Maryland restraining order laws walks through both processes.
On the civil damages side, Maryland recognizes the tort of intrusion upon seclusion. Secretly monitoring someone's movements can support a lawsuit for money damages, separate from any criminal charge.
What to Do If You Find a Tracker on Your Car
- Do not destroy it. The device is evidence, and it may carry fingerprints or a registered owner account.
- Photograph it in place before touching anything. Capture where it was mounted and any wiring.
- Call the police. Ask for a report documenting the device. If you suspect a specific person, say so; account records can identify who registered a Bluetooth tracker.
- Check your phone too. If you got an alert that an unknown AirTag is traveling with you, follow the prompts to make it play a sound and view its serial number.
- Consider a peace or protective order if the tracking is part of a pattern of unwanted contact.
- Talk to a lawyer about a civil invasion of privacy claim, especially if the tracker ties back to an ex, an employer, or a private investigator.
If the device also records audio or video, the legal picture changes sharply, so mention that to police. For the bigger picture across all 50 states, see our hub on GPS Tracking Laws by State.
Sources
- Md. Code, Criminal Law 3-802, Stalking (Maryland General Assembly)
- Md. Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings 10-402, Interception of Communications (Maryland General Assembly)
- Md. Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings 3-1503, Peace Orders (Maryland General Assembly)
- House Bill 148 (2022), Criminal Law - Stalking (Maryland General Assembly)
- 18 U.S.C. 2261A, Stalking (Cornell Legal Information Institute)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) (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 facing a stalking situation or a criminal charge, talk to a licensed Maryland attorney, and call 911 if you are in immediate danger.
More Maryland Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I put a GPS tracker on my spouse's car in Maryland?
If the car is titled solely in your spouse's name and they do not know about it, you are taking a serious risk. Maryland's stalking statute covers tracking a person's location without their knowledge or consent, and secretly monitoring an estranged spouse is a classic fact pattern. Even on a jointly owned car, covert tracking can support a stalking charge or a protective order and tends to backfire in divorce court.
Is it legal to track my teenager's car in Maryland?
Yes. A parent or legal guardian may track a vehicle driven by their minor child. Parental monitoring is not a malicious course of conduct under Criminal Law 3-802. Once the child turns 18, they are an adult and the normal consent rules apply.
Is putting an AirTag on someone a crime in Maryland?
It can be. Criminal Law 3-802 covers any device that can pinpoint or track another person's location without their knowledge or consent. Hiding an AirTag in someone's bag or car as part of conduct that frightens them or causes serious emotional distress is misdemeanor stalking, punishable by up to 5 years.
Can my employer track a company vehicle I drive?
Yes. Maryland has no statute restricting employer GPS on company-owned vehicles, and the stalking law's lawful commercial purpose exception covers fleet tracking. Your personal car is different; an employer that secretly tracks an employee's private vehicle risks criminal and civil liability.
Does Maryland's two-party consent law apply to GPS trackers?
No. Courts and Judicial Proceedings 10-402 prohibits intercepting communications without all-party consent. A silent GPS tracker does not intercept any conversation or message, so the wiretap law does not apply. A tracker with a microphone is a different story and can trigger felony wiretap charges.
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 its movements is a Fourth Amendment search, so law enforcement normally needs a warrant. The Court stopped there and did not decide whether a warrant is always required, because the Government forfeited that argument by not raising it in the lower courts.
What is the penalty for GPS stalking in Maryland?
Stalking under Criminal Law 3-802 is a misdemeanor punishable by up to 5 years in prison, a fine of up to $5,000, or both. The court can run the sentence consecutive to any other sentence imposed for crimes arising from the same conduct.
Updates
Corrected a key takeaway that overstated United States v. Jones: the Supreme Court held that attaching and monitoring a GPS tracker is a Fourth Amendment search but did not decide whether a warrant is always required.
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.
Maryland Code, Criminal Law Article
§ 3-802In forcecited in 2 of our articles
§3–802. (a) In this section: (1) “stalking” means a malicious course of conduct that includes approaching or pursuing another where: (i) the person intends to place or knows or reasonably should have known the conduct would place another in reasonable fear: 1. A. of serious bodily injury; B. of an assault in any degree; C. of rape or sexual offense as defined by §§ 3–303 through 3–308 of this title or attempted rape or sexual offense in any degree; D. of false imprisonment; or E. of death; or 2. that a third person likely will suffer any of the acts listed in item 1 of this item; or (ii) the person intends to cause or knows or reasonably should have known that the conduct would cause serious emotional distress to another; and (2) “stalking” includes conduct described in item (1) of this subsection that occurs: (i) in person; (ii) by electronic communication, as defined in § 3–805 of this subtitle; or (iii) through the use of a device that can pinpoint or track the location of another without the person’s knowledge or consent.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-26 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at mgaleg.maryland.gov
Cited in 2 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Schiff v. Brown (District Court, D. Maryland 2023)“…sted, charged, and convicted of stalking under Md. Code Ann., Crim. Law § 3-802, for his communications to an assistant…”
- Rouhi v. CVS Pharmacy (District Court, D. Maryland 2020)“…alleges violations of several Maryland criminal statutes, Md. Code Ann., Crim. Law § 3-802 (stalking), 3-803 (harassment), § 3…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Maryland Employee Monitoring Laws: Passwords, Cameras & GPS
Maryland Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article
§ 10-402In forcecited in 26 of our articles
§10–402. (a) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this subtitle it is unlawful for any person to: (1) Willfully intercept, endeavor to intercept, or procure any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication; (2) Willfully disclose, or endeavor to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subtitle; or (3) Willfully use, or endeavor to use, the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subtitle. (b) Any person who violates subsection (a) of this section is guilty of a felony and is subject to imprisonment for not more than 5 years or a fine of not more than $10,000, or both.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at mgaleg.maryland.gov
Cited in 12 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Applying section 10-402, Fearnow v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. (1995) held that liability under the Maryland Wiretap Act requires proof the defendant acted willfully, an intentional violation or reckless disregard of a known legal duty; an employee's failure to check for a court order was only a jury factor on willfulness.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Fearnow v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland 1995, 104 Md. App. 1)✓Police hid a tape recorder on an officer's headquarters phone line with a phone company employee's help and no court order; the court held a section 10-402(a) claim requires proof of willful interception, and failing to ask about a court order went only to willfulness.
- Maryland Attorney General Opinion 110OAG60 (Maryland Attorney General Reports 2025)“…or wire communications without the consent of all parties. Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 10-402(a). However, the Wiretap Act contains e…”
- Boehner, John A. v. McDermott, James A. (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 1999, 191 F.3d 463)“…1992); Me.Rev.Stat. Ann. tit. 15, §§ 710, 711 (West 1998); Md.Code Ann., Cts & Jud. Proc. § 10-402 (1998); Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 272,…”
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, Is Plaud HIPAA Compliant? Kind Of. Here's What to Know (2026), Maryland Audio Recording Laws: Two-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026)
§ 3-1503In force
§3–1503. (a) (1) A petitioner may seek relief under this subtitle by filing with the court, or with a commissioner under the circumstances specified in § 3–1503.1(a) of this subtitle, a petition that alleges the commission of any of the following acts against the petitioner, or any of the following acts against the petitioner’s employee at the employee’s workplace, by the respondent, if the act occurred within 30 days before the filing of the petition: (i) An act that causes serious bodily harm; (ii) An act that places the petitioner or the petitioner’s employee in fear of imminent serious bodily harm; (iii) Assault in any degree; (iv) False imprisonment; (v) Harassment under § 3–803 of the Criminal Law Article; (vi) Stalking under § 3–802 of the Criminal Law Article; (vii) Trespass under Title 6, Subtitle 4 of the Criminal Law Article; (viii) Malicious destruction of property under § 6–301 of the Criminal Law Article; (ix) Misuse of telephone facilities and equipment under § 3–804 of the Criminal Law Article; (x) Misuse of electronic communication or interactive computer service under § 3–805 of the Criminal Law Article; (xi) Revenge porn under § 3–809 of the Criminal…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at mgaleg.maryland.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
- Md. Code, Criminal Law 3-802 (Stalking)(mgaleg.maryland.gov)
- Md. Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings 10-402 (Wiretap Act)(mgaleg.maryland.gov)
- Md. Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings 3-1503 (Peace Orders)(mgaleg.maryland.gov)
- Maryland House Bill 148 (2022), Criminal Law - Stalking(mgaleg.maryland.gov)
- 18 U.S.C. 2261A, Stalking(law.cornell.edu)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012)(law.cornell.edu)