North Dakota
North Dakota 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
Whether you can legally put a GPS tracker on a car in North Dakota comes down to two questions: whose car is it, and why are you tracking it.
Track your own vehicle and you are almost always fine. Slip a tracker onto someone else's car without permission and you may have just committed stalking, even if you only did it once.
This guide walks through North Dakota's GPS tracking rules, who is allowed to track a vehicle, the penalties, and what to do if you find a device on your own car. For the rest of the country, see GPS Tracking Laws by State.
Is It Legal to Put a GPS Tracker on a Car in North Dakota?
It is legal to put a GPS tracker on a car in North Dakota only if you own the vehicle, you have the owner's consent, or you fall under a recognized exception such as licensed private investigation work. Tracking another person's movements without authorization can be charged as stalking under N.D.C.C. 12.1-17-07.1.
North Dakota does not have a standalone electronic tracking device statute the way some states do. Instead, lawmakers wrote GPS tracking directly into the criminal stalking law. That choice matters, because it means illegal tracking here is treated as a crime against a person, not a minor technical violation.
The practical rule of thumb:
- Your own car: legal to track.
- A car you co-own, like a shared family vehicle: usually legal, though using the location data to frighten or harass someone can still cross the line.
- Someone else's car without consent: a potential Class A misdemeanor, or worse.
ND's Stalking Law: One Act of GPS Tracking Is Enough (12.1-17-07.1)
Most stalking laws require a "course of conduct," meaning a pattern of repeated behavior. North Dakota's GPS provision is different.
Under N.D.C.C. 12.1-17-07.1, the definition of "stalk" includes "the unauthorized tracking of the person's movements or location through the use of a global positioning system, robot, or other electronic means that would cause a reasonable person to be frightened, intimidated, or harassed and which serves no legitimate purpose."
Notice what is missing from that language. There is no repetition requirement in this prong of the definition. Planting a tracker one time, on one day, can satisfy the statute.
To convict, prosecutors must prove three things:
- The tracking was unauthorized. The person tracked never consented, and no statutory defense applies.
- It would cause a reasonable person to feel frightened, intimidated, or harassed.
- It served no legitimate purpose.
That third element is where most lawful tracking lives. A parent monitoring a minor child, a company keeping tabs on its own delivery van, or an owner watching their own car all have a legitimate purpose. A suspicious ex secretly logging a former partner's movements does not.
Who Can Legally Track a Vehicle in North Dakota
Vehicle owners. Tracking your own property is not "unauthorized," so installing a tracker on a car titled in your name falls outside the stalking definition.
Anyone with consent. If the owner or driver agrees to the tracking, the statute does not apply. Get that consent in writing if there is any chance of a dispute later.
Parents of minor children. Monitoring a minor child's location is a textbook legitimate purpose, whether through a tracker on the teen's car or a location app on their phone.
Licensed private investigators. North Dakota wrote an explicit defense into the statute. Under N.D.C.C. 12.1-17-07.1(4), a private investigator licensed under chapter 43-30 who is acting within the scope of that employment has a defense to a stalking charge. The protection covers licensed professionals doing legitimate work; hiring a PI as a workaround to harass someone does not launder an illegal purpose.
Peace officers. Peace officers licensed under chapter 12-63 who are acting within the scope of employment are also covered by the statutory defense. The Fourth Amendment still applies, though. In United States v. Jones (2012), the U.S. Supreme Court held that attaching a GPS device to a suspect's vehicle is a search, so police generally need a warrant first.
North Dakota also has its own tracking warrant statute. Under N.D.C.C. 29-29.6-02, a government entity may not obtain the location information of an electronic device without a tracking warrant supported by probable cause. The chapter lists five exceptions: a device reported lost or stolen by its owner, responding to the user's own call for emergency services, the documented consent of the owner or user, the consent of a legal guardian or next of kin when the owner is missing or believed deceased, and an emergency involving injury or death.
Can My Employer Track My Car in North Dakota?
North Dakota has no statute that specifically governs employer GPS tracking. That leaves the general stalking rules as the main legal boundary.
Company-owned vehicles are the easy case. The employer owns the vehicle, and monitoring its own property for business reasons is a legitimate purpose. Tracking a fleet truck is lawful even without the driver's enthusiasm about it.
Personal vehicles are different. An employer who hides a tracker on an employee's personal car without consent is in dangerous territory under 12.1-17-07.1, because the tracking is unauthorized and the business justification is far weaker. Careful employers get written consent before any tracking touches a personal vehicle, usually through a signed telematics or mileage policy.
If you drive your own car for work, read what you signed and check whether any company mileage app shares your location. For related workplace monitoring rules, see our guide to surveillance camera laws.
AirTags, Drones, and "Robots"
In 2025, North Dakota lawmakers passed House Bill 1429, which added the word "robot" to the stalking definition and defined it as an artificial object or system that senses, processes, and acts using technology, including artificial intelligence. The statute says the term includes remotely piloted aircraft.
The statute now covers tracking by "a global positioning system, robot, or other electronic means." That catch-all language matters for modern devices:
- Apple AirTags and Bluetooth trackers. An AirTag is not technically a GPS unit, but it is plainly an "other electronic means" of tracking location. Dropping one in someone's bag or magnet-mounting it inside a bumper without consent fits the statute.
- Drones. Following a person with a drone to monitor their movements falls under the "robot" language.
- Phone apps. Secretly installing a location-sharing app on someone else's phone raises the same unauthorized tracking problem.
If your situation also involves recorded calls or hidden microphones, see North Dakota's recording laws, which cover audio surveillance separately.
Penalties for Illegal GPS Tracking in North Dakota
| Offense | Level | Maximum jail or prison | Maximum fine |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stalking by unauthorized GPS tracking (first offense) | Class A misdemeanor | 360 days | $3,000 |
| Stalking by someone with a prior conviction under the stalking statute itself, no matter who that earlier victim was | Class C felony | 5 years | $10,000 |
| Stalking by someone with a prior assault, harassment, or similar chapter 12.1-17 conviction involving the same victim | Class C felony | 5 years | $10,000 |
| Stalking that violates a chapter 14-07.1 domestic violence protection order the offender had notice of | Class C felony | 5 years | $10,000 |
| Interstate stalking (18 U.S.C. 2261A) | Federal felony | 5 years, more if injury results | Federal fines |
A first offense Class A misdemeanor is North Dakota's most serious misdemeanor level. Section 12.1-17-07.1(6)(a) lists three routes to the felony, and they are not all limited to the same victim. A prior assault, harassment, or similar conviction from chapter 12.1-17 counts only when it involved the victim of the current stalking. A prior conviction under the stalking statute itself counts no matter who that earlier victim was, so a repeat GPS tracker who targets a brand new person is already facing a felony on the second offense. The third route is stalking that violates a domestic violence protection order issued under chapter 14-07.1 when the offender had notice of it. A disorderly conduct restraining order under chapter 12.1-31.2 is a different remedy and does not trigger that route.
Federal charges under 18 U.S.C. 2261A come into play when a stalker travels across state lines or uses electronic systems of interstate commerce, which cellular trackers typically are, with intent to harass or intimidate.
Civil Options and Restraining Orders
North Dakota's stalking statute does not create a private right of action, meaning the criminal law itself does not let you sue for money damages. Victims still have civil tools:
- Disorderly conduct restraining order (DCRO). Chapter 12.1-31.2 of the Century Code lets a person petition the district court for a restraining order against someone whose intrusive conduct adversely affects their safety, security, or privacy. Secret GPS tracking is exactly the kind of conduct these orders address. Our North Dakota restraining order guide walks through the filing process.
- Domestic violence protection order. If the tracker was planted by a current or former partner or a family member, a protection order may be available, and violating it turns future tracking into a felony.
- Privacy lawsuits. Some states let victims sue for "intrusion upon seclusion." North Dakota courts have not clearly adopted that claim, so a damages lawsuit is uncertain here. Talk to a North Dakota attorney before counting on civil recovery.
What to Do If You Find a Tracker on Your Car
- Photograph everything first. Capture the device exactly where you found it, with wide shots and close-ups, before touching anything.
- Do not destroy it. The tracker is evidence, and its serial number or SIM card can identify who planted it.
- Call local police or the sheriff's office. Report it as suspected stalking under 12.1-17-07.1 and ask for a case number.
- Check your phone for tracker alerts. iPhones flag unknown AirTags automatically, and Apple and Google both offer detection tools for Android.
- Consider a restraining order. A DCRO under chapter 12.1-31.2 can legally bar the person from any further contact or monitoring.
- Plan for your safety before confronting anyone. Removing a tracker can alert whoever planted it. If you suspect a current or former partner, contact a domestic violence advocate first.
Sources
- N.D.C.C. chapter 12.1-17, section 12.1-17-07.1 (Stalking), North Dakota Legislative Branch
- N.D.C.C. chapter 12.1-31.2 (Disorderly Conduct Restraining Orders), North Dakota Legislative Branch
- N.D.C.C. chapter 12.1-32 (Penalties and Sentencing), North Dakota Legislative Branch
- N.D.C.C. chapter 43-30 (Private Investigative and Security Services), North Dakota Legislative Branch
- N.D.C.C. chapter 29-29.6 (Tracking Warrants), North Dakota Legislative Branch
- House Bill 1429, Sixty-ninth Legislative Assembly (2025), enrolled, North Dakota Legislative Branch
- 18 U.S.C. 2261A (Stalking), Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012), Supreme Court of the United States
Disclaimer: This article is general legal information, not legal advice. Statutes change and every situation is different. If you are facing a tracking or stalking issue in North Dakota, talk to a licensed North Dakota attorney, and call 911 if you are in immediate danger.
More North Dakota Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I put a GPS tracker on my spouse's car in North Dakota?
If the car is titled in your name or jointly owned, tracking it is generally legal. If the car belongs solely to your spouse and you hide a tracker without consent, you risk a stalking charge under N.D.C.C. 12.1-17-07.1, and a divorce judge is unlikely to reward secretly gathered evidence.
Is it legal to track my teenager's car?
Yes. A parent monitoring a minor child has a legitimate purpose, which puts the tracking outside North Dakota's stalking definition. Once the child turns 18, their consent is needed like anyone else's.
Do police need a warrant to put a GPS tracker on my car?
Generally yes. In United States v. Jones (2012), the U.S. Supreme Court held that physically attaching a GPS device to a vehicle is a Fourth Amendment search, so police normally need a warrant before installing one. North Dakota has its own rule as well: under N.D.C.C. 29-29.6-02, a government entity generally may not obtain location information from an electronic device without a probable cause tracking warrant, subject to narrow exceptions such as a lost or stolen device, a call for emergency services, or documented consent.
Are AirTags illegal in North Dakota?
Owning an AirTag is legal, and using one to find your own keys or luggage is fine. Using one to track a person without their consent fits the statute's 'other electronic means' language and can be charged as stalking.
Can a private investigator legally put a tracker on my car?
A private investigator licensed under N.D.C.C. chapter 43-30 who is acting within the scope of that employment has a statutory defense to stalking under 12.1-17-07.1(4). An unlicensed person calling themselves an investigator has no such protection.
Can I sue someone who put a GPS tracker on my car?
North Dakota's stalking law has no private right of action, and the state's courts have not clearly recognized an intrusion-upon-seclusion privacy tort. Your strongest civil tool is a disorderly conduct restraining order under chapter 12.1-31.2, paired with a criminal report.
Is a single act of GPS tracking really a crime in North Dakota?
Yes. Unlike the harassment prongs of the stalking law, the GPS tracking prong has no course-of-conduct requirement. One unauthorized act of electronic tracking that would frighten, intimidate, or harass a reasonable person, with no legitimate purpose, satisfies the definition.
Updates
Corrected the year the "robot" tracking language was added to North Dakota's stalking law (2025 House Bill 1429), clarified that a second stalking conviction is a felony regardless of whether it involves the same victim, limited the protection-order felony route to chapter 14-07.1 domestic violence orders, and added North Dakota's own tracking warrant statute (N.D.C.C. 29-29.6-02) alongside United States v. Jones.
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.
North Dakota Century Code
§ 12.1-17-07.1StalkingIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
As used in this section: "Course of conduct" means a pattern of conduct consisting of two or more acts evidencing a continuity of purpose. The term includes an act conducted with a robot in the direct control of the person. The term does not include constitutionally protected activity. "Immediate family" means a spouse, parent, child, or sibling. The term also includes any other individual who regularly resides in the household or who within the prior six months regularly resided in the household. "Robot" means an artificial object or system that senses, processes, and acts using technology, including the associated elements, communication links, and artificial intelligence. The term includes remotely piloted aircraft. "Stalk" means: To engage in an intentional course of conduct directed at a specific person which frightens, intimidates, or harasses that person and which serves no legitimate purpose.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-26 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ndlegis.gov
Cited in 5 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):State v. Holbach (2009) applied the section's constitutionally protected activity exclusion, holding the defendant's conduct lost protection once it became an intentional course of conduct causing fear, and that he lacked standing to call it vague. State v. Geiger (2023) upheld a conviction under subsection (2) on sufficiency review.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Holbach (North Dakota Supreme Court 2009, 763 N.W.2d 761)✓A man with a prior stalking conviction repeatedly followed the victim around town despite a no-contact probation order; the court held his travel was not constitutionally protected activity excluded by the statute and that he lacked standing to argue it was vague.
- State v. Geiger (North Dakota Supreme Court 2023, 997 N.W.2d 845)✓After a bank closed his account, a customer phoned and threatened an employee, then parked repeatedly outside the bank and near her home; the court held the evidence sufficed for stalking under section 12.1-17-07.1(2) and that his protected-activity claim was not preserved.
- State v. Rivera (North Dakota Supreme Court 2018, 2018 ND 15)“…rely on the definition of course of conduct provided under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-17-07.1(1)(a). That statute provides, “As used…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: North Dakota Employee Monitoring Laws: Workplace Surveillance and GPS Tracking (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)
Explore the law
This article also draws on these acts and chapters (opening at their first section): North Dakota Century Code § 43-30-01 (Definitions) · North Dakota Century Code § 12.1-32-01 (Classification of offenses - Penalties)
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
- N.D.C.C. ch. 12.1-17, sec. 12.1-17-07.1 (Stalking)(ndlegis.gov)
- N.D.C.C. ch. 12.1-31.2 (Disorderly Conduct Restraining Orders)(ndlegis.gov)
- N.D.C.C. ch. 12.1-32 (Penalties and Sentencing)(ndlegis.gov)
- N.D.C.C. ch. 43-30 (Private Investigative and Security Services)(ndlegis.gov)
- 18 U.S.C. 2261A (Federal Stalking)(law.cornell.edu)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012)(supremecourt.gov)
- N.D.C.C. ch. 29-29.6 (Tracking Warrants)(ndlegis.gov)
- House Bill 1429, Sixty-ninth Legislative Assembly of North Dakota (2025), enrolled(ndlegis.gov)