Michigan
Michigan 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
Michigan GPS Tracking Laws: Is It Legal to Put a Tracker on a Car? (2026)
Putting a GPS tracker on someone else's car without their knowledge and consent is a misdemeanor in Michigan. You can spend up to a year in jail and pay up to $1,000 for it. Michigan also does something most states do not: the statute itself says the person who planted the tracker, and even a bail agent or licensed private investigator who is otherwise exempt from criminal liability, can be liable for all damages the vehicle owner suffers, which gives victims a ready-made path to sue.
This guide explains MCL 750.539l, Michigan's vehicle tracking law, in plain English. It covers who can legally track a car, the unusually detailed private investigator exception, what employers can do, how AirTag cases are handled, and what to 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 Michigan?
In most situations, no. Michigan law makes it a crime to install or place a tracking device on a motor vehicle without the knowledge and consent of the vehicle's owner or lessee. It is also a crime to use a device to track the location of a vehicle without that consent.
Notice the wording. The statute requires knowledge and consent. Tricking an owner into agreeing, or relying on consent the owner never knowingly gave, does not satisfy the law.
The statute also contains a special protection for people covered by personal protection orders. If you are the restrained party under a protective order, tracking a vehicle operated or occupied by the person that order protects is its own separate offense under subsection (1)(c), with no requirement that the vehicle be someone else's. The statutory exceptions in subsection (2) apply to that offense the same way they apply to the rest of subsection (1), but subsection (3) closes the most obvious workaround: the licensed investigator exemption disappears when the investigator is working for a client who is the restrained party. If you have a stalking or domestic violence concern, our guide to Michigan restraining order laws explains how PPOs work.
The bottom line: you can track a vehicle you own or lease. Tracking anyone else's vehicle requires their consent or a specific statutory exception.
Michigan's Vehicle Tracking Law (MCL 750.539l)
Michigan's tracking law sits in the eavesdropping chapter of the penal code. It was added by 2010 Public Act 107 and took effect on August 1, 2010, well before AirTags existed, but its language covers any "device" used to track the location of a motor vehicle.
The statute makes it a misdemeanor to do any of the following:
- Install or place a tracking device, or cause one to be installed or placed, in or on a motor vehicle without the knowledge and consent of the owner (or lessee, if the vehicle is leased)
- Track the location of a motor vehicle with a tracking device without the knowledge and consent of the owner or the authorized operator (or, if leased, the lessee or authorized operator)
- While being the restrained party under a protective order, track a vehicle operated or occupied by a person protected under that order
- While on probation or parole for an assaultive crime, track a vehicle operated or occupied by the victim of that crime or the victim's family member without their knowledge and consent
A "tracking device" means any electronic device that is designed or intended to be used to track the location of a motor vehicle regardless of whether that information is recorded. A hardwired GPS unit, a battery-powered magnetic tracker, and an AirTag in a magnetic case stuck to a bumper all qualify.
Who Can Legally Track a Vehicle in Michigan
MCL 750.539l contains one of the longer exception lists you will find in any state tracking statute. The following people and uses are lawful:
The owner or lessee, and anyone with their consent. You can track your own car. You can also track a car when the owner or lessee knowingly agrees, which is how fleet tracking and family arrangements stay legal.
Built-in vehicle technology. Devices installed for navigation, mechanical diagnostics, weather, or traffic information do not violate the law. Neither do subscription services that provide emergency assistance or help recover missing and stolen vehicles, the OnStar style systems that come with many cars.
Lessors who give notice. A leasing or rental company can track its own vehicles if the lease or rental agreement discloses it. If the company installs a tracker after the vehicle was manufactured, the lessee must sign a written acknowledgment.
Parents and guardians of minors. A parent or legal guardian may track a vehicle operated by their minor child, as long as the vehicle is owned or leased by the parent, the guardian, or the minor. Even a car titled in the teenager's own name is covered while the teen drives it. The exception does not cover tracking an adult child.
Police, court officers, and bail agents. Law enforcement officers acting within their lawful authority are exempt, though under the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Jones, police generally need a warrant to attach a GPS tracker to a suspect's car. Court officers appointed under MCL 600.8321 and professional bail agents locating people who skipped bond are also covered.
Licensed professional investigators. This is Michigan's most distinctive exception. A licensed PI (or a registered employee of one) may place a tracker while performing professional duties such as obtaining evidence for a court proceeding, investigating crimes or wrongs, locating a fugitive from justice, or locating lost or stolen property and court-awarded assets.
But the PI exception has two hard limits. First, the exemption does not apply when the investigator is working on behalf of a client who is the restrained party under a protective order. Second, it does not apply when the investigator knows or has reason to know the client is seeking the tracking to aid in the commission of a crime or wrong. A suspicious spouse cannot launder an illegal tracking job through a private investigator if a PPO is in place.
Can My Employer Track My Car in Michigan?
If you drive a company vehicle, yes. The employer owns or leases the vehicle, so it falls under the owner consent exception. Michigan has no statute requiring employers to notify employees that company vehicles carry GPS, although most employers disclose it in policy documents anyway.
Your personal vehicle is different. An employer who hides a tracker on a car you own commits a misdemeanor like anyone else. If your employer wants location data from your personal vehicle, for example for mileage reimbursement, it needs your knowing consent, typically through a tracking app you agree to install.
Workplace monitoring rarely stops at vehicles. Our guides to Michigan recording laws and surveillance camera laws cover what employers can record inside the workplace.
AirTags and Item Trackers in Michigan
MCL 750.539l only applies to tracking motor vehicles. So what happens when someone drops an AirTag into a purse, a coat pocket, or a child's backpack?
Those cases run through Michigan's stalking laws. Stalking under MCL 750.411h is a willful course of conduct involving repeated harassment that would make a reasonable person feel terrorized, frightened, or harassed. Using an item tracker to follow someone's movements fits the statute's definition of unconsented contact and surveillance.
Stalking is a misdemeanor punishable by up to 1 year and a $1,000 fine. Aggravated stalking under MCL 750.411i is a felony carrying up to 5 years and $10,000. Stalking becomes aggravated when, among other things, it violates a restraining order or probation condition, or when the offender has a prior stalking conviction.
Federal law adds another layer. Using a GPS device or any electronic system to stalk someone across state lines, or in a way that places them in fear or causes substantial emotional distress, violates the federal stalking statute, 18 U.S.C. 2261A.
If the AirTag is attached to a car rather than a person's belongings, prosecutors can use both the vehicle tracking statute and the stalking statutes.
Penalties for Illegal GPS Tracking in Michigan
| Offense | Statute | Classification | Maximum penalty |
|---|---|---|---|
| Placing or using a tracker on a vehicle without consent | MCL 750.539l | Misdemeanor | 1 year jail and/or $1,000 fine |
| Stalking (including tracker-based surveillance) | MCL 750.411h | Misdemeanor | 1 year jail and/or $1,000 fine |
| Aggravated stalking (PPO violation, repeat offense) | MCL 750.411i | Felony | 5 years prison and/or $10,000 fine |
| Federal stalking with an electronic tracking device | 18 U.S.C. 2261A | Federal felony | 5 years prison, more if injury results |
A single course of conduct can stack charges. Someone who hides a tracker on an ex-partner's car while subject to a PPO faces the tracking misdemeanor, aggravated stalking, and contempt for violating the order.
Suing for Damages: Michigan's Built-In Civil Liability
Most state tracking laws are purely criminal. If you want money damages, you have to build a common law invasion of privacy case from scratch. Michigan took a different approach.
MCL 750.539l states that "a person who illegally installs or uses a tracking device or a person described in subsection (2)(i) or (j) who installs or uses a tracking device is liable for all damages incurred by the owner or lessee" of the vehicle. The civil remedy reaches further than the criminal one: a bail agent or licensed professional investigator who is criminally exempt under those subsections can still face civil damages liability.
That means a victim can sue the person who planted the tracker, or a bail agent or licensed professional investigator who used a tracker under the exemptions in subsection (2)(i) or (j), and recover provable losses: the cost of a professional sweep of the vehicle, security measures, lost time, and other damages flowing from the installation or use of the device. Michigan courts also recognize the common law tort of intrusion upon seclusion, which can support additional claims for emotional distress in serious cases.
If you are dealing with a tracker placed by a soon-to-be ex-spouse, this civil hook also matters in divorce litigation. Evidence gathered through an illegal tracker can backfire badly on the person who gathered it.
What to Do If You Find a GPS Tracker on Your Car
- Do not destroy it. The device is evidence. Photograph it exactly where you found it before touching anything.
- Document the details. Note the date, time, location on the vehicle, and the device's appearance, brand, and any serial numbers.
- Call the police. Report it and reference MCL 750.539l. Tracking a vehicle without consent is a crime, and tracking a PPO-protected person's vehicle is treated seriously.
- Consider a personal protection order. If you suspect an ex-partner or stalker, a PPO adds criminal teeth to any further contact and converts future stalking into a felony.
- Get the car swept. A mechanic or a private investigator can check wheel wells, bumpers, the OBD port, and under-seat areas for additional devices.
- Talk to a lawyer about damages. Michigan's built-in civil liability means you may be able to recover your costs from the person responsible.
Sources
- MCL 750.539l, Tracking device on motor vehicle, Michigan Legislature
- MCL 750.411h, Stalking, Michigan Legislature
- MCL 750.411i, Aggravated stalking, Michigan Legislature
- MCL 600.8321, Court officers, Michigan Legislature
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012), Legal Information Institute
- 18 U.S.C. 2261A, Stalking, Legal Information Institute
Disclaimer: This article is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Laws change and their application depends on specific facts. If you are facing a tracking or stalking situation, contact a licensed Michigan attorney or, in an emergency, call 911.
- Michigan Car Accident Laws
- Michigan Car Seat Laws
- Michigan Child Custody Laws
- Michigan Child Support Laws
- Michigan Common Law Marriage Laws
- Michigan Dashcam Laws
- Michigan Data Privacy Laws
- Michigan Deepfake Laws
- Michigan Divorce Laws
- Michigan Dog Bite Laws
- Michigan Drone Laws
- Michigan Emancipation Laws
- Michigan Employee Monitoring Laws
More Michigan Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it illegal to put a GPS tracker on my spouse's car in Michigan?
If the car is owned or leased solely by your spouse and they have not consented, yes, it is a misdemeanor under MCL 750.539l. If you co-own the vehicle, you have a stronger argument as an owner, but using the data to harass or follow your spouse can still support stalking charges, and tracking a spouse who has a PPO against you is a crime regardless of whose name is on the title.
Can a private investigator legally put a tracker on a car in Michigan?
Sometimes. Michigan licensed professional investigators have a statutory exception when they are performing professional duties such as gathering evidence for court or locating fugitives or stolen property. But the exception does not apply when the client is the restrained party under a protective order, or when the PI knows or has reason to know the client wants the tracking to aid in committing a crime or wrong.
Can parents put a GPS tracker on their teenager's car?
Yes, if the child is a minor, the minor operates the vehicle, and the vehicle is owned or leased by the parent, the guardian, or the minor. That includes a car titled in the teen's own name. The exception does not apply once the child turns 18.
Do police need a warrant to put a GPS tracker on a car in Michigan?
Generally yes. In United States v. Jones, the U.S. Supreme Court held that attaching a GPS device to a vehicle and monitoring its movements is a search under the Fourth Amendment, so police typically need a warrant. Michigan's statute separately exempts officers acting within their lawful authority.
Does MCL 750.539l cover AirTags?
Yes, when the AirTag is placed on or in a motor vehicle, because the law covers any electronic device used to track a vehicle's location. An AirTag slipped into a bag or jacket is not covered by the vehicle statute, but it can support stalking charges under MCL 750.411h or 750.411i.
Can my employer track my personal car in Michigan?
Not without your consent. The owner exception covers company-owned and leased vehicles, but your personal vehicle belongs to you. An employer who secretly attaches a tracker to an employee's own car commits a misdemeanor and is liable for damages.
Can I sue someone who put a GPS tracker on my car?
Yes. Michigan's statute expressly says a person who illegally installs or uses a tracking device, or a bail agent or licensed professional investigator acting under the exemptions in subsection (2)(i) or (j), is liable for all damages incurred by the owner or lessee of the vehicle. You can also explore common law privacy claims such as intrusion upon seclusion for emotional distress.
Updates
Corrected how the protective-order tracking ban interacts with the statute's exceptions: MCL 750.539l(2) applies to all of subsection (1), and it is subsection (3) that strips the licensed investigator exemption when the client is the restrained party.
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected the MCL 750.539l civil-liability quote and every restatement of it: the statute's civil damages remedy also reaches bail agents and licensed private investigators who are criminally exempt, not only an illegal installer.
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.
Michigan Compiled Laws
§ 750.539lTracking device; placement or installment on motor vehicle without consent; violation as misdemeanor; penalty; exemptions; inapplicability of subsection (2)(j); liability for damages; definitionsIn forcecited in 6 of our articles
(1) A person who does any of the following is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year or a fine of not more than $1,000.00, or both: (a) Installs or places a tracking device, or causes a tracking device to be installed or placed, in or on a motor vehicle without the knowledge and consent of the owner of that motor vehicle or, if the motor vehicle is leased, the lessee of that motor vehicle. (b) Tracks the location of a motor vehicle with a tracking device without the knowledge and consent of either the owner or the authorized operator of that motor vehicle or, if the motor vehicle is leased, either the lessee or the authorized operator of that motor vehicle. (c) While being the restrained party under a protective order, tracks the location of a motor vehicle operated or occupied by an individual protected under that order with a tracking device.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cross-referenced in the statute itself: § 600.8321
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2016
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- People of Michigan v. Michael Joseph Ouellette (Michigan Court of Appeals 2016)“…rized installation of a tracking device on a motor vehicle, MCL 750.539l. Defendant was sentenced, as a third ha…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Michigan Employee Monitoring Laws (2026): Social Media, GPS & Cameras, Michigan Surveillance Camera Laws (2026 Guide), GPS Tracking Laws by State: Is It Legal to Put a Tracker on a Car? (2026)
§ 750.411hStalking; definitions; violation as misdemeanor; penalties; probation; conditions; evidence of continued conduct as rebuttable presumption; additional penaltiesIn forcecited in 9 of our articles
(1) As used in this section: (a) "Course of conduct" means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of 2 or more separate noncontinuous acts evidencing a continuity of purpose. (b) "Dating relationship" means frequent, intimate associations primarily characterized by the expectation of affectional involvement. This term does not include a casual relationship or an ordinary fraternization between 2 individuals in a business or social context. (c) "Emotional distress" means significant mental suffering or distress that may, but does not necessarily, require medical or other professional treatment or counseling. (d) "Harassment" means conduct directed toward a victim that includes, but is not limited to, repeated or continuing unconsented contact that would cause a reasonable individual to suffer emotional distress and that actually causes the victim to suffer emotional distress. Harassment does not include constitutionally protected activity or conduct that serves a legitimate purpose.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 122 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- McNEILL-MARKS v. MIDMICHIGAN MEDICAL CENTER-GRATIOT (Michigan Court of Appeals 2016, 316 Mich. App. 1)“…n from “stalking” plaintiff, as that term is “defined under MCL 750.411h and MCL 750.411i, which includes but is…”
- Hayford v. Hayford (Michigan Court of Appeals 2008, 279 Mich. App. 324)“…ion 411h or 411i of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328 , MCL 750.411h and 750.411Í. (j) Any other spec…”
- Nastal v. Henderson & Associates Investigations, Inc (Michigan Supreme Court 2005, 471 Mich. 712)“…that serves a legitimate purpose.” MCL 750.411h(1)(c). The circuit court conclud…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Michigan Laws on Recording in Public: First Amendment Rights and Limits (2026), Michigan Drone Laws (2026): Privacy Statute, Preemption, and Warrants, Michigan Restraining Order Laws (2026): How to Get a Personal Protection Order
§ 750.411iDefinitions; aggravated stalking; circumstances; violation as felony; penalty; probation; additional conditions of probation; effect of continued course of conduct; rebuttable presumption; additional penaltyIn forcecited in 5 of our articles
(1) As used in this section: (a) "Course of conduct" means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of 2 or more separate noncontinuous acts evidencing a continuity of purpose. (b) "Credible threat" means a threat to kill another individual or a threat to inflict physical injury upon another individual that is made in any manner or in any context that causes the individual hearing or receiving the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety or the safety of another individual. (c) "Emotional distress" means significant mental suffering or distress that may, but does not necessarily, require medical or other professional treatment or counseling. (d) "Harassment" means conduct directed toward a victim that includes, but is not limited to, repeated or continuing unconsented contact that would cause a reasonable individual to suffer emotional distress and that actually causes the victim to suffer emotional distress. Harassment does not include constitutionally protected activity or conduct that serves a legitimate purpose.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 142 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- McNEILL-MARKS v. MIDMICHIGAN MEDICAL CENTER-GRATIOT (Michigan Court of Appeals 2016, 316 Mich. App. 1)“…plaintiff, as that term is “defined under MCL 750.411h and MCL 750.411i, which includes but is not limited to”…”
- Buchanan v. Crisler (Michigan Court of Appeals 2018, 922 N.W.2d 886)“…ted that Crisler stalked her as defined in MCL 750.411h and MCL 750.411i by approaching or confronting her in a…”
- IME v. DBS (Michigan Court of Appeals 2014, 306 Mich. App. 426)“…engaging in the conduct criminalized under MCL 750.411h or MCL 750.411i, which statutes prohibit what is common…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 600.8321Civil process; serviceIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
(1) Civil process in the district court shall be served by a sheriff, deputy sheriff or a court officer appointed by the judges of the court for that purpose, except that officers of the department of state police or conservation officers of the department of natural resources may serve civil process in any action to which the state is a party and police officers of an incorporated city or village may serve civil process in any action to which the incorporated city or village is a party. (2) Under rules of the supreme court, any other person may serve any process or order of the district court that does not require the seizure, attachment, or garnishment of property or the arrest of a person. This section applies notwithstanding section 1908.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 1989
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Menken v. 31st District Court (Michigan Court of Appeals 1989, 179 Mich. App. 379)“…ss in the district court district. RJA 8321, 1961 PA 236 , MCLA 600.8321; MSA 27A.8321, provides in part as foll…”
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)
Explore the law
The laws cited above reference these related sections in their own text:
- Michigan Compiled Laws § 600.2950 — Personal protection order; restraining or enjoining spouse, former spouse, individual with child in common, individual in dating relationship, or person residing or having resided in same household from certain conduct; respondent required to carry concealed weapon; omitting address of residence from documents; issuance, contents, effectiveness, duration, and service of personal protection order; entering order into law enforcement information network; notice; failure to comply with order; false statement to court; enforcement; respondent less than 18 years of age; ownership interest in animal; definitions view in our statute record · read at the official source
- Michigan Compiled Laws § 600.2950a — Personal protection order restraining or enjoining individual from engaging in conduct prohibited under MCL 750.411h, 750.411i, or 750.411s; facts alleging stalking; conduct; respondent required to carry concealed weapon; omitting address of residence from documents; reasons for issuing or refusing to grant order; mutual order prohibited; effectiveness, issuance, contents, and duration of order; duties of court clerk; entering order into L.E.I.N.; service; notice to law enforcement agency; enforcement; refusal or failure to comply; false statement to court; purchase or possession of firearm; person less than 18 years ; issuance to prisoner prohibited; definitions view in our statute record · read at the official source
Related law for further reading — not part of this article’s citations.
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- MCL 750.539l (Placing tracking device on motor vehicle; prohibition; exceptions; penalty)(legislature.mi.gov)
- MCL 750.411h (Stalking)(legislature.mi.gov)
- MCL 750.411i (Aggravated stalking)(legislature.mi.gov)
- MCL 600.8321 (Court officers)(legislature.mi.gov)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012)(law.cornell.edu)
- 18 U.S.C. 2261A (Federal stalking statute)(law.cornell.edu)