Oregon
Oregon 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
A GPS tracker the size of a matchbox can report a car's location every few seconds for weeks. In Oregon, sticking one of those on somebody else's vehicle is not a gray area. It is a named crime with its own statute, and it can become a felony fast if the person placing it has a stalking history.
This guide is part of our GPS Tracking Laws by State series. It walks through ORS 163.715, who is allowed to track a vehicle in Oregon, what happens to people who do it illegally, and how victims can sue.
Is It Legal to Put a GPS Tracker on a Car in Oregon?
Only if the vehicle's owner says yes. Since 2017, Oregon has had a statute aimed squarely at hidden vehicle trackers: ORS 163.715, unlawful use of a global positioning system device.
The rule is short. If you knowingly attach a GPS device to a motor vehicle without the consent of the vehicle's owner, you have committed a crime. It does not matter whether you ever looked at the location data. The act of affixing the device is the offense.
That means tracking your own car is fine. Tracking a car you co-own is generally fine too, because an owner is consenting. Tracking an ex's car, a dating partner's car, or a vehicle titled solely to your estranged spouse is where people get charged.
Oregon's GPS Device Law (ORS 163.715)
ORS 163.715 was created by Senate Bill 483 in 2017, after advocates pointed out that abusers were using cheap trackers to follow victims and that Oregon law did not clearly criminalize it. The bill created the offense as a free-standing provision and codified it by amending ORS 161.005 to include it in the Oregon Criminal Code of 1971. The 163.715 number is where Legislative Counsel filed the section when compiling the statutes: an editorial note printed with the section records that it was not added to or made a part of ORS chapter 163 by legislative action. What does show how seriously Oregon treats covert vehicle tracking is the felony escalator below, which turns the offense into a Class C felony when the person already has a stalking conviction or is under a no-contact order.
![]()
The baseline offense is a Class A misdemeanor. Under Oregon's general sentencing statutes, that carries up to 364 days in jail and a fine of up to $6,250.
The statute then adds a serious escalator. The same act becomes a Class C felony if the person affixing the device:
- Has a prior conviction for stalking under ORS 163.732
- Has a prior conviction for violating a stalking protective order under ORS 163.750
- Is the subject of an outstanding stalking citation issued under ORS 163.735
- Is subject to a no-contact order, including a stalking protective order under ORS 30.866 or ORS 163.738, or a Family Abuse Prevention Act restraining order under ORS 107.700 to 107.735
A Class C felony in Oregon carries up to 5 years in prison and a fine of up to $125,000. In other words, a person already under a restraining order who plants a tracker on the protected person's car is looking at felony exposure for the tracker alone, before prosecutors even reach the stalking or contempt charges. If you have an Oregon protective order or are thinking about getting one, our Oregon restraining order guide explains how those orders work.
Who Can Legally Track a Vehicle in Oregon
ORS 163.715 builds in three main paths to legal tracking.
The vehicle's owner consents. This is the everyday exception. You can track your own car. A parent who owns or co-owns a teen's car can install a tracker. Spouses can track a vehicle they jointly own, because a consenting owner is consenting. The analysis changes when the car is titled solely to the other spouse, especially during a separation. In that situation the safe assumption is that placing a tracker is a crime.
Police acting under a warrant or court order. ORS 163.715(3)(a) excepts a police officer who affixes the device pursuant to a warrant or court order, so officers may attach a tracking device when a court authorizes it. This mirrors the federal constitutional rule from United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012), where the Supreme Court held that attaching a GPS device to a car and monitoring it is a Fourth Amendment search. Warrantless tracking by police is the exception, not the norm.
The motor-carrier exception. Here is Oregon's unusual wrinkle. The statute does not apply when the device is affixed to a vehicle operated by a motor carrier, as defined in ORS 825.005. The text turns on who operates the vehicle, not who owns it. Motor carriers are the commercial trucking and for-hire transport companies regulated under chapter 825. The exception is written broadly: any person may affix a GPS device to a vehicle operated by a motor carrier without violating ORS 163.715. In practice this protects fleet telematics, shipper tracking, and logistics monitoring on commercial trucks. It is one of the broadest commercial carve-outs in any state GPS statute.
What is missing from that list matters just as much. Oregon has no exception for private investigators. A PI who sticks a tracker on a subject's personal vehicle without the owner's consent commits the same misdemeanor as anyone else. Several states give licensed investigators a defense. Oregon does not.
Can My Employer Track My Car in Oregon?
It depends entirely on who owns the vehicle.
If you drive a company-owned car, van, or truck, your employer is the owner and can consent to its own tracker. GPS on company vehicles is lawful and extremely common, and if the vehicle is operated by a motor carrier as defined in ORS 825.005, the tracking is exempt from the statute altogether.
If you drive your own personal car for work, the picture flips. Your employer is not the owner, so affixing a tracker to your personal vehicle without your consent would violate ORS 163.715. Employers that want location data from personal vehicles typically get it through a consent form or a mileage app you agree to install.
Oregon has no statute requiring employers to give written notice before tracking company vehicles, so do not expect a disclosure letter. Workplace monitoring in Oregon runs on ownership and consent. For cameras and other monitoring on the job, see our guide to surveillance camera laws.
AirTags and Item Trackers
ORS 163.715 is a vehicle statute. It applies when a GPS device is affixed to a motor vehicle. An Apple AirTag, Tile, or SmartTag dropped into a purse, coat pocket, or backpack does not fit that language.
![]()
That does not make AirTag tracking legal. It just moves the case to a different statute. Oregon's stalking law, ORS 163.732, criminalizes knowingly alarming or coercing another person through repeated unwanted contact, and courts treat covert electronic monitoring as part of a stalking course of conduct. Stalking starts as a Class A misdemeanor and becomes a Class C felony for repeat offenders.
An AirTag attached to a car, by contrast, can support a charge under ORS 163.715 itself, since the device is affixed to a motor vehicle and reports location. Either way, hiding a tracker on a person or their belongings in Oregon invites criminal liability, and federal law adds another layer: 18 U.S.C. 2261A, the federal stalking statute, covers using any electronic device to surveil a person in a way that causes substantial emotional distress or fear, with penalties of up to 5 years for a basic violation.
Penalties: Misdemeanor Standard, Felony With a Stalking History
| Conduct | Charge | Maximum penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Affixing a GPS device to a motor vehicle without the owner's consent (ORS 163.715) | Class A misdemeanor | 364 days in jail and a $6,250 fine |
| The same act by a person with a prior stalking conviction, an outstanding stalking citation, or a no-contact order | Class C felony | 5 years in prison and a $125,000 fine |
| Stalking through repeated unwanted contact, including tracker-enabled following (ORS 163.732) | Class A misdemeanor, Class C felony for repeat offenses | 364 days and $6,250, or 5 years and $125,000 |
| Federal interstate stalking with an electronic monitoring device (18 U.S.C. 2261A) | Federal felony | 5 years or more depending on harm |
Prosecutors can stack charges. A defendant who planted a tracker and then used it to show up wherever the victim went will often face both the GPS count and a stalking count, plus violation of any protective order in place.
Suing the Tracker: ORS 30.866 and Privacy Torts
Criminal charges are the state's tool. Oregon also gives victims their own.
ORS 30.866 creates a civil stalking action. A person who has been subjected to repeated unwanted contact that causes reasonable alarm can petition the circuit court for a stalking protective order. Covert GPS tracking, discovered trackers, and tracker-enabled appearances at the victim's locations are exactly the kind of contacts courts consider.
The remedies go beyond the order itself. In the same action the court can award compensatory damages, including out-of-pocket losses like security costs and lost income, plus punitive damages and attorney fees. That fee-shifting provision matters, because it makes these cases financially possible for victims who could not otherwise hire a lawyer.
Separately, Oregon recognizes the common-law tort of intrusion upon seclusion. Secretly monitoring someone's daily movements with a hidden device is a textbook intrusion claim, and it can be brought alongside or instead of the statutory action.
What to Do If You Find a Tracker on Your Car
Stay calm and think about evidence before you act.
![]()
- Photograph the device where you found it. Wheel wells, bumper cavities, under-seat areas, and the OBD-II port under the dash are the most common spots. Take wide and close shots.
- Do not destroy it. The device is evidence. Its serial number can often be traced to a purchaser or a subscription account.
- Call the police. Report it under ORS 163.715. Ask for a case number and ask that the device be logged into evidence.
- Consider leaving it in place temporarily if officers ask, since removal can tip off the person monitoring you and complicate the investigation. Follow law enforcement's guidance on this.
- If you suspect a specific person, talk to an attorney or a domestic violence advocate about a stalking protective order under ORS 30.866 and document every incident.
- Check your phone too. Tracking rarely travels alone. Review location sharing settings, unknown AirTag alerts, and any apps you did not install.
If the situation involves recorded conversations as well as tracking, Oregon's consent rules for audio are different from its GPS rules. Our Oregon recording laws guide covers when you can record calls and conversations in the state.
Sources
- ORS 163.715 - Unlawful use of a global positioning system device (ORS ch. 163)
- ORS 163.732 - Stalking (ORS ch. 163)
- ORS 30.866 - Civil stalking action and protective order
- ORS 161.605, 161.615, 161.625, 161.635 - Maximum terms and fines for felonies and misdemeanors
- ORS 825.005 - Definitions for motor carriers
- Enrolled Senate Bill 483 (2017), which created ORS 163.715
- 18 U.S.C. 2261A - Federal stalking statute
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012)
Disclaimer: This article is legal information, not legal advice. Laws change and every situation is different. If you are dealing with illegal tracking, stalking, or a protective order matter in Oregon, talk to a licensed Oregon attorney. If you are in immediate danger, call 911.
More Oregon Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it legal to put a GPS tracker on my spouse's car in Oregon?
Only if you are an owner of the vehicle. If the car is jointly titled, your consent as an owner generally covers the placement. If the car is titled solely to your spouse, attaching a tracker without their consent is a Class A misdemeanor under ORS 163.715, and evidence gathered that way can backfire badly in a divorce case.
Can a private investigator legally place a GPS tracker in Oregon?
No. Oregon's statute has no private investigator exception. A PI needs the vehicle owner's consent just like anyone else. A spouse who owns the car can authorize a PI to track that car, but a PI cannot lawfully tag a vehicle owned solely by the surveillance target.
Can I track my teenager's car?
Yes, if you own or co-own the vehicle, which is the usual situation with a teen driver. The owner's consent is the consent that counts under ORS 163.715. If the car is titled only in the teen's name, the legal footing is weaker, and you should get their agreement.
Does Oregon's GPS law cover AirTags in a bag or purse?
Not directly. ORS 163.715 applies to devices affixed to motor vehicles. An AirTag hidden in a purse or backpack is instead prosecuted under Oregon's stalking statute, ORS 163.732, when it is part of unwanted monitoring, and it can also violate the federal stalking law, 18 U.S.C. 2261A.
Can Oregon police put a tracker on my car without a warrant?
As a rule, no. ORS 163.715 excepts a police officer who affixes the device pursuant to a warrant or court order, and the U.S. Supreme Court held in United States v. Jones that attaching a GPS device to a vehicle is a Fourth Amendment search, which normally requires a warrant.
Why are commercial trucks treated differently?
The statute exempts devices affixed to vehicles operated by motor carriers as defined in ORS 825.005. The exemption turns on who operates the vehicle, not who owns it. Its effect is that fleet telematics and freight tracking on carrier-operated vehicles continue without criminal risk, and any person may place the device, so the carve-out is broad.
Can I sue someone who tracked my car in Oregon?
Yes. ORS 30.866 lets you petition for a stalking protective order and, in the same case, seek compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorney fees. You may also have a common-law claim for intrusion upon seclusion.
Is it legal to remove a tracker I find on my own car?
Yes, it is your vehicle. But photograph it first, avoid destroying it, and report it to police, because the device and its account records are the best evidence of who placed it. Officers sometimes ask victims to leave the device in place briefly to support the investigation.
Updates
Corrected the motor-carrier exception (the statute covers vehicles operated by a motor carrier, not vehicles it owns), noted that the police exception covers a warrant or a court order, and replaced an unsupported claim about why the offense sits in ORS chapter 163 with its actual codification history.
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.
Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 163: Offenses Against Persons
§ 163.715Unlawful use of a global positioning system deviceIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
(1) A person commits the crime of unlawful use of a global positioning system device if the person knowingly affixes a global positioning system device to a motor vehicle without consent of the owner of the motor vehicle. (2)(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection, unlawful use of a global positioning system device is a Class A misdemeanor. (b) Unlawful use of a global positioning system device is a Class C felony if, at the time of the offense, the person: (A) Has been previously convicted of stalking under ORS 163.732, violating a court’s stalking order under ORS 163.750 or committing an equivalent crime in another jurisdiction; or (B) Is the subject of a citation issued under ORS 163.735, an order issued under ORS 30.866, 107.700 to 107.735 or 163.738 or another court order prohibiting the person from contacting another person. (3) This section does not apply to: (a) A police officer who affixes a global positioning system device to a motor vehicle pursuant to a warrant or court order; or (b) A person who affixes a global positioning system device to a motor vehicle operated by a motor carrier.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-26 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at oregonlegislature.gov
Also relied on in: Oregon Employee Monitoring Laws (2026): Workplace Surveillance Rights
§ 163.732StalkingIn force
(1) A person commits the crime of stalking if: (a) The person knowingly alarms or coerces another person or a member of that person’s immediate family or household by engaging in repeated and unwanted contact with the other person; (b) It is objectively reasonable for a person in the victim’s situation to have been alarmed or coerced by the contact; and (c) The repeated and unwanted contact causes the victim reasonable apprehension regarding the personal safety of the victim or a member of the victim’s immediate family or household. (2)(a) Stalking is a Class A misdemeanor.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at oregonlegislature.gov
Cited in 66 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Rangel (Oregon Supreme Court 1999, 328 Or. 294)“…in this criminal case is whether Oregon’s stalking statute, ORS 163.732, is overbroad in violation of Article I…”
- Delgado v. Souders (Oregon Supreme Court 2002, 334 Or. 122)“…dant’s conduct has upon the recipient. Compare ORS 163.732(1) (crime of stalking requires that per…”
- House v. Hicks (Court of Appeals of Oregon 2008, 218 Or. App. 348)“…lies here, whether criminal stalking conduct occurred under ORS 163.732, or whether ORS 163.732 is a “law * * *…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 825: Motor Carriers
§ 825.005DefinitionsIn force
As used in this chapter: (1) “Carrier” or “motor carrier” means for-hire carrier or private carrier. (2) “Cartage carrier” means any person who undertakes to transport any class of property by motor vehicle for compensation when the transportation is performed wholly within an incorporated city or a commercial zone adjacent to an incorporated city. (3) “Certificate” means an authority issued to a for-hire carrier under ORS 825.110. (4) “Combined weight” means the weight of the motor vehicle plus the weight of the maximum load which the applicant has declared such vehicle will carry. Any declared combined weight is subject to audit and approval by the Department of Transportation. (5) “Department” means the Department of Transportation. (6) “Extreme miles” or “extreme mileage” means the total miles operated by a vehicle over the public highways, except the extra miles necessarily operated in traversing detours or temporary routes on account of road blockades in the state.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at oregonlegislature.gov
Cited in 5 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2020
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- May Trucking Co. v. Employment Department (Court of Appeals of Oregon 2012, 251 Or. App. 555)“…ction ‘for-hire carrier’ has the meaning given that term in ORS 825.005.” 1 EAB rejected employer’s argument…”
- Beaver Creek Cooperative Telephone Co. v. Public Utility Commission (Court of Appeals of Oregon 2002, 182 Or. App. 559)“…10 The term “for-hire carrier” is defined in ORS 825.005(7) (pertaining to motor carriers), but…”
- Delta Logistics, Inc. v. Employment Department Tax Section (Court of Appeals of Oregon 2016, 279 Or. App. 498)“…rgely undisputed. Delta is a for-hire carrier as defined in ORS 825.005(7)(a), 1 and is licensed and authorize…”
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
- ORS 163.715 - Unlawful use of a global positioning system device(oregonlegislature.gov)
- ORS 163.732 - Stalking(oregonlegislature.gov)
- ORS 30.866 - Civil stalking action and protective order(oregonlegislature.gov)
- ORS 161.605-161.635 - Maximum terms and fines for felonies and misdemeanors(oregonlegislature.gov)
- ORS 825.005 - Definitions for motor carriers(oregonlegislature.gov)
- 18 U.S.C. 2261A - Federal stalking statute(law.cornell.edu)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012)(law.cornell.edu)
- Enrolled Senate Bill 483 (2017) - created the unlawful use of a global positioning system device offense(olis.oregonlegislature.gov)