Vermont
Vermont 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
Vermont's criminal code has no standalone offense that names GPS tracking devices. That does not make hidden trackers legal. Prosecutors reach them through the state's stalking statute, which was deliberately rewritten in 2015 to cover monitoring "by any action, method, device, or means." Vermont's civil stalking-order law is different: a 2025 amendment to 12 V.S.A. 5131 named tracking devices and apps directly, giving victims an easier path to a protective order.
The short version: tracking a car you own is generally fine. Secretly tracking someone else's movements, whether with a hardwired GPS unit or an AirTag in a wheel well, can be charged as stalking, punishable by up to two years in prison. Do it in violation of a court order that prohibits stalking and the maximum jumps to five years.
This guide explains how Vermont law actually applies to vehicle trackers, what the pending tracking-technology bill would change, and what to do if you find a device on your car. It is part of our GPS Tracking Laws by State series.
Is It Legal to Put a GPS Tracker on a Car in Vermont?
It depends entirely on whose car it is and why you are tracking it.
If you own the vehicle, you can put a tracker on it. That covers your own car, a car titled in your name that someone else drives, and business vehicles your company owns.
If the car belongs to someone else and you hide a tracker on it to follow their movements, you are running headfirst into Vermont's stalking law. Vermont's criminal stalking statute never passed language that specifically names electronic tracking devices; the legislature instead wrote the criminal stalking definition broadly enough to absorb new technology, and GPS trackers fit squarely inside it. Vermont's civil stalking-order law went further: a 2025 amendment to 12 V.S.A. 5131 added tracking by an electronic, digital, or geolocation device or app as its own basis for a civil stalking order.
That gap matters in one direction: a single act of placing a tracker, with no pattern and no fear caused, is harder to charge in Vermont than in states with a device-specific statute. But the moment a tracker is used to monitor someone over time, the stalking statute applies with full force.
Vermont's Broad Stalking Definition Covers Tracking (13 V.S.A. 1061-1062)
Vermont's stalking law starts with definitions in 13 V.S.A. 1061. A "course of conduct" means two or more acts over any period of time, however short, in which a person "follows, monitors, surveils, threatens, or makes threats about another person, or interferes with another person's property." The statute adds that these acts can occur "directly or indirectly, and by any action, method, device, or means."
That language is not an accident. The legislature modernized the definition in 2015 through Act 162 specifically so the law would keep up with electronic surveillance. A GPS tracker that pings a location every few minutes is monitoring and surveilling by a device, exactly what the text describes.
To "stalk" under 13 V.S.A. 1061(4) means to engage purposefully in that course of conduct, directed at a specific person, when you know or should know it would cause a reasonable person to fear for their safety or suffer substantial emotional distress.
Put together, the elements line up neatly with covert tracking:
- Planting the device and then checking its location data supplies the two or more acts.
- The continuous monitoring is the surveillance "by any device."
- Secretly following someone's movements is the kind of conduct a reasonable person finds frightening or deeply distressing.
One important carve-out: 13 V.S.A. 1061 expressly excludes constitutionally protected activity from the definition of course of conduct. Lawful newsgathering or observing someone in public is not stalking. Hiding a tracker on their car is a different matter.
The Pending Tracking-Technology Bill (H.223)
Vermont lawmakers know the current setup leaves gaps. In February 2025, Representatives Angela Arsenault and Monique Priestley introduced H.223, "an act relating to stalking through the use of tracking technology."
![]()
The bill would address tracking devices and tracking applications directly, rather than forcing prosecutors to fit AirTag cases into the general stalking framework.
As of June 2026, H.223 has not become law. It was read for the first time and referred to the House Committee on Judiciary on February 14, 2025, where it received testimony in February and May 2025 but never advanced to a floor vote. If you are reading this later, check the bill's status page on the Vermont General Assembly website, since a future session could revive the concept.
Until something like H.223 passes, the stalking statute remains the main criminal tool against covert trackers in Vermont.
Who CAN Legally Track a Vehicle in Vermont
Plenty of GPS tracking is perfectly lawful. Common examples:
- Your own vehicle. Owners and co-owners can track cars titled in their names, including for theft recovery.
- Parents tracking minor children. Parents can monitor a minor child's phone or a car the parent owns.
- Businesses tracking company vehicles. Fleet tracking of employer-owned vehicles is standard practice.
- Police with a warrant. After the US Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Jones (2012), attaching a GPS device to a vehicle is a Fourth Amendment search, so law enforcement generally needs a warrant.
- Consensual tracking. Family members or couples who knowingly share locations through an app are not victims of stalking. Consent is the dividing line.
The riskiest gray zone is a spouse tracking a jointly owned car during a separation or divorce. Ownership gives a colorable right to install a device, but using it to monitor the other spouse can still look like a course of conduct under 13 V.S.A. 1061, and family courts take a dim view of it. Talk to a Vermont attorney before relying on joint title.
Can My Employer Track My Car in Vermont?
Vermont has no statute regulating employer GPS tracking, so the general rules control.
If you drive a company-owned vehicle, your employer can track it, and most fleet employers disclose this in a vehicle policy. Tracking during work hours in an employer's own vehicle is lawful.
Your personal vehicle is different. An employer that hides a tracker on an employee's personal car, without consent, has no ownership interest to fall back on and risks the same stalking analysis as anyone else, plus a civil invasion-of-privacy claim. The safe and standard approach is written consent, typically through a mileage-tracking app the employee installs voluntarily.
Workplace monitoring questions often overlap with audio and video rules, which we cover in our guide to Vermont recording laws.
AirTags and Item Trackers
Apple AirTags, Tile trackers, and Samsung SmartTags are covered by the same analysis as a dedicated GPS unit. The statute's "any action, method, device, or means" language does not care whether the tracker costs $29 or $300.
![]()
AirTag stalking cases follow a familiar pattern: an ex drops a tracker into a bag or magnet-mounts it under a bumper, then shows up wherever the victim goes. In Vermont, each check of that tracker's location feeds the course of conduct, and the unexplained appearances supply the fear element.
Apple and Google have built anti-stalking alerts that notify nearby phones about unknown trackers traveling with them. If your iPhone or Android phone shows an "unknown tracker detected" alert, treat it seriously and preserve the alert with screenshots.
Penalties for Illegal Tracking in Vermont
| Offense | Statute | Maximum penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Stalking | 13 V.S.A. 1062 | Up to 2 years in prison, fine up to $5,000, or both |
| Aggravated stalking | 13 V.S.A. 1063 | Up to 5 years in prison, fine up to $25,000, or both |
| Violation of a civil stalking order | 12 V.S.A. ch. 178; 13 V.S.A. 1030 | Criminal charge; repeat violations escalate |
| Federal stalking (interstate or electronic) | 18 U.S.C. 2261A | Up to 5 years in federal prison, more with aggravating factors |
Stalking becomes aggravated stalking under 13 V.S.A. 1063 when any of five factors is present: the conduct violates a court order that prohibits stalking and is in effect at the time of the offense, it is a second or subsequent stalking or aggravated-stalking conviction, the stalker has a prior conviction for an offense involving an act of violence against the same victim, the victim is under 16, or the stalker had a deadly weapon. Tracking an ex in violation of an order that prohibits stalking, such as a civil stalking order or an abuse prevention protective order, is the classic path from the two-year offense to the five-year one. An order that does not prohibit stalking, such as a parenting-time or property order, does not by itself make the offense aggravated.
Federal law can also apply. 18 U.S.C. 2261A reaches stalking that uses an "electronic communication service or electronic communication system of interstate commerce," which courts have applied to GPS and cellular trackers.
Civil Stalking Orders Without a Conviction
Vermont gives victims a civil track that does not depend on the criminal case. Under 12 V.S.A. chapter 178 (section 5131 and following), a person who has been stalked can petition the Civil Division of the Superior Court for an order against stalking.
The petitioner only needs to prove stalking by a preponderance of the evidence, a far lower bar than beyond a reasonable doubt, and no criminal conviction is required. The court can order the stalker to stay away from the victim, their home, and their workplace. Violating the order is itself a crime and converts any continued tracking into aggravated stalking.
A found GPS tracker, photographs of it, and location alerts from your phone are exactly the kind of evidence these petitions are built on. If the person tracking you is a family or household member, an abuse prevention order may fit instead; see our guide to Vermont restraining order laws.
What to Do If You Find a Tracker on Your Car
- Do not destroy it. The device is evidence, and it may carry the owner's account information.
- Photograph everything. Capture the device in place, the mounting location, and any serial numbers before touching it.
- Call local police or the Vermont State Police. Ask them to document the device. If you have an idea who placed it, say so and explain the history.
- Save phone alerts. Screenshot any unknown-tracker notifications, including dates and locations.
- Consider a civil stalking order. You can file under 12 V.S.A. chapter 178 even while a criminal investigation is pending.
- Get the car swept if needed. A mechanic can check wheel wells, bumpers, the OBD-II port, and under the dash for hardwired units.
![]()
Be cautious about confronting the person you suspect. If you are in danger, work through police and the courts rather than tipping off the tracker's owner.
Cameras pointed at your driveway raise related but separate rules, covered in our guide to surveillance camera laws.
Sources
Disclaimer: This article is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Laws change, and pending bills like H.223 can alter the rules described here. For advice about a specific situation, consult a licensed Vermont attorney or, if you are in danger, contact law enforcement.
More Vermont Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it illegal to put a GPS tracker on someone's car in Vermont?
There is no standalone tracking-device crime in Vermont, but using a hidden tracker to monitor someone can be charged as stalking under 13 V.S.A. 1062. The stalking definition expressly covers monitoring or surveilling a person by any device, and penalties run up to 2 years in prison and a $5,000 fine.
Can I put a tracker on my spouse's car during a divorce?
It is risky. If the car is solely in your spouse's name, hidden tracking can support a stalking charge and a civil stalking order. Even with a jointly titled car, monitoring your spouse's movements can be treated as a course of conduct under 13 V.S.A. 1061 and will hurt you in family court. Ask a Vermont attorney first.
Are AirTags treated differently from GPS trackers in Vermont?
No. Vermont's stalking statute covers monitoring by any action, method, device, or means, so an AirTag, Tile, or SmartTag used to follow a person is analyzed the same way as a dedicated GPS unit.
Does Vermont have a specific GPS tracking law?
Not for a criminal charge. H.223, a 2025 bill that would create a stand-alone crime of stalking through tracking technology, was referred to the House Judiciary Committee in February 2025 and had not passed as of June 2026; until it does, prosecutors rely on the general stalking statute. Vermont's civil law is further along: a 2025 amendment to 12 V.S.A. 5131 already names electronic, digital, and geolocation tracking devices and apps as a basis for a civil stalking order.
Can my employer track my car in Vermont?
Employers can track vehicles the company owns. No Vermont statute addresses employer GPS tracking of personal vehicles, but hiding a tracker on an employee's own car without consent invites stalking liability and a privacy lawsuit. Legitimate employers get written consent.
Can Vermont police put a GPS tracker on my car without a warrant?
Generally no. In United States v. Jones (2012), the US Supreme Court held that attaching a GPS device to a vehicle and using it to monitor movements is a Fourth Amendment search, so police normally need a warrant.
Can I get a protective order against someone tracking me without a criminal conviction?
Yes. Under 12 V.S.A. chapter 178, you can petition the Civil Division of the Superior Court for an order against stalking using the civil preponderance standard. No arrest or conviction is required, and violating the order is a crime.
What are the penalties for tracking someone in violation of a court order in Vermont?
Tracking that violates a court order prohibiting stalking, such as a civil stalking order or an abuse prevention order, that is in effect at the time qualifies as aggravated stalking under 13 V.S.A. 1063, punishable by up to 5 years in prison, a fine of up to $25,000, or both. An order that does not prohibit stalking, such as a parenting-time or property order, does not by itself trigger the aggravated offense.
Updates
Clarified that stalking becomes aggravated stalking only when the conduct violates a court order that prohibits stalking and is in effect at the time, not any court order.
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected the article's framing that no Vermont statute names electronic tracking devices (the civil stalking-order law, 12 V.S.A. 5131, was amended in 2025 to do exactly that) and fixed the aggravated-stalking factor count from four to the statute's actual five.
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.
Vermont Statutes Annotated, Title 13: Crimes and Criminal Procedure, Chapter 19: Breach of the Peace; Disturbances, Subchapter: STALKING
§ 1062StalkingIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
Any person who intentionally stalks another person shall be imprisoned not more than two years or fined not more than $5,000.00, or both. (Added 1993, No. 95, § 1.)
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-26 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.vermont.gov
Cited in 9 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2020
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Vermont courts have applied 13 V.S.A. 1062 to persistent unwanted contact. State v. Ellis (2009) reversed a stalking conviction because the conduct would not make a reasonable person fear unlawful restraint. State v. Noll (2018) upheld the statute facially, reading it to reach only true threats. Both read definitions amended in 2016.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Ellis (Supreme Court of Vermont 2009, 186 Vt. 232)✓A high school student sent his classmate persistent emails and waited outside her classes after she told him to stop; the court reversed his Section 1062 conviction, holding the conduct would not cause a reasonable person to fear unlawful restraint or bodily injury.
- C. Paige Hinkson v. Stuart Stevens (Supreme Court of Vermont 2020, 2020 VT 69)“…or criminal stalking can be up to two years’ imprisonment. 13 V.S.A. § 1062. Thus, although this defendant does not…”
- State of Vermont v. Christian J. Noll (Supreme Court of Vermont 2018, 199 A.3d 1054)“…Noll appeals from his conviction for stalking pursuant to 13 V.S.A. § 1062 (2015). He argues that: (1) the crimina…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Vermont Employee Monitoring Laws: Workplace Surveillance and Social Media (2026)
§ 1061DefinitionsIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
As used in this subchapter: (1)(A) “Course of conduct” means two or more acts over a period of time, however short, in which a person follows, monitors, surveils, threatens, or makes threats about another person, or interferes with another person’s property. This definition shall apply to acts conducted by the person directly or indirectly, and by any action, method, device, or means. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of “course of conduct.” (B) As used in subdivision (A) of this subdivision (1), threaten shall not be construed to require an express or overt threat. (2) “Emotional distress” means significant mental suffering or distress that may, but does not necessarily, require medical or other professional treatment or counseling. (3) “Reasonable person” means a reasonable person in the victim’s circumstances. (4) “Stalk” means to engage purposefully in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that the person engaging in the conduct knows or should know would cause a reasonable person to fear for his or her safety or the safety of another or would cause a reasonable person substantial emotional distress. (Added 1993, No.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-01 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.vermont.gov
Cited in 13 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Hinchliffe (Supreme Court of Vermont 2009, 186 Vt. 487)“…physical safety or to fear substantial emotional distress, 13 V.S.A. § 1061(1)(B), and defendant argued the State l…”
- C. Paige Hinkson v. Stuart Stevens (Supreme Court of Vermont 2020, 2020 VT 69)“…cause a reasonable person substantial emotional distress.” 13 V.S.A. § 1061(4). The civil statute uses identical l…”
- State of Vermont v. Christian J. Noll (Supreme Court of Vermont 2018, 199 A.3d 1054)“…so we do not consider it. All citations in this opinion to 13 V.S.A. §§ 1061-1062 refer to the version effective in…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 1063Aggravated stalkingIn force
(a) A person commits the crime of aggravated stalking if the person intentionally stalks another person, and: (1) such conduct violates a court order that prohibits stalking and is in effect at the time of the offense; (2) has been previously convicted of stalking or aggravated stalking; (3) has been previously convicted of an offense an element of which involves an act of violence against the same person; (4) the person being stalked is under 16 years of age; or (5) had a deadly weapon, as defined in section 1021 of this title, in his or her possession while engaged in the act of stalking. (b) A person who commits the crime of aggravated stalking shall be imprisoned not more than five years or be fined not more than $25,000.00, or both. (c) Conduct constituting the offense of aggravated stalking shall be considered a violent act for the purposes of determining bail. (Added 1993, No. 95, § 1; amended 2005, No. 83, § 5; 2015, No. 162 (Adj. Sess.), § 5.)
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-01 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.vermont.gov
Cited in 3 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Nicolae Beldiman (Supreme Court of Vermont 2025, 2025 VT 55)“…itions of release, and aggravated stalking in violation of 13 V.S.A. § 1063(a)(1). The affidavit filed in support…”
- Todd v. Geno (Vermont Superior Court 2013)“…old, or possession of a deadly weapon during the stalking. 13 V.S.A. § 1063(a). It also requires (1) two or more i…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Vermont Statutes Annotated, Title 12: Court Procedure, Chapter 178: Orders Against Stalking or Sexual Assault
§ 5131DefinitionsIn force
As used in this chapter: (1)(A) “Course of conduct” means: (i) two or more acts over a period of time, however short, in which a person follows, monitors, surveils, threatens, or makes threats about another person, or interferes with another person’s property; or (ii) use of any electronic, digital, or precise geolocation device or software or application to surveil a specific person or a specific person’s internet or wireless activity continuously for 12 hours or more or on two or more occasions over a period of time, however short, without authorization. (B) This definition shall apply to acts conducted by the person directly or indirectly, and by any action, method, device, or means. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of “course of conduct.” (C) As used in subdivision (A) of this subdivision (1), threaten shall not be construed to require an express or overt threat. (2) [Repealed.] (3) “Nonphysical contact” includes telephone calls, mail, email, social media commentary or comment, or other electronic communication, fax, and written notes. (4) “Reasonable person” means a reasonable person in the victim’s circumstances.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-01 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.vermont.gov
Cited in 27 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- C. Paige Hinkson v. Stuart Stevens (Supreme Court of Vermont 2020, 2020 VT 69)“…t be considered stalking under the civil stalking statute, 12 V.S.A. § 5131. Construing the terms of § 5131 narrowl…”
- Elizabeth Swett, Doug Earle, Gordon Stake v. Brian Gates (Supreme Court of Vermont 2023, 297 A.3d 944)“…ce of the initial no-stalking order was not satisfied. See 12 V.S.A. § 5131(6) (defining “stalk” as “to engage purp…”
- Ava Morton v. Mayah Young (Supreme Court of Vermont 2023, 298 A.3d 230)“…course of conduct sufficient to constitute stalking under 12 V.S.A. § 5131. Whether the trial court correctly int…”
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
- 13 V.S.A. 1061, definitions for stalking, Vermont General Assembly(legislature.vermont.gov)
- 13 V.S.A. 1062, stalking, Vermont General Assembly(legislature.vermont.gov)
- 13 V.S.A. 1063, aggravated stalking, Vermont General Assembly(legislature.vermont.gov)
- H.223 (2025-2026), an act relating to stalking through the use of tracking technology(legislature.vermont.gov)
- 12 V.S.A. 5131, civil orders against stalking or sexual assault(legislature.vermont.gov)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012), slip opinion(supremecourt.gov)
- 18 U.S.C. 2261A, federal stalking statute(law.cornell.edu)