May 08, 2003
GPS Tracking Devices On Cars To Track Activity Of Others

In a comment section of a previous post someone has just posted claiming that a police force secretly put a GPS tracking device on his car. This leads to the obvious question of whether doing that is legal. Here's an article that reports routine installation of GPS devices by private investigators to track individuals who are not even married.

Virginia Beach Private Investigator Lee Oakes uses GPS everyday. He secretly installs magnetized units - it can take as little as 10 seconds - under the cars of individuals his clients pay him to follow.

I could see how a private investigator would have less legal problem doing it for one half of a married couple since the car that would be tracked would typically be jointly owned by the couple. But an example cited in the article involved tracking a fiance who had a cheating heart. Well, the article claims this is perfectly legal:

Again, using a GPS tracking device on a vehicle is not illegal...as long as you don't commit a crime (breaking into the car, tapping into the car's power supply, altering the car's driving characteristics, etc.) installing the device.

This might vary by state. Does anyone know? This article is reporting on Hampton Roads and Virginia Beach and so it is dealing with Virginia state law.

Also, are there fewer restrictions on monitoring and surveillance by private individuals than by police forces and other government agencies?

If current law remains in effect how ubiquitous will monitoring of others become? Because of continuing technical advances the devices will only become cheaper, smaller, and easier to use.

Share |      Randall Parker, 2003 May 08 01:14 PM  Surveillance GPS


Comments
trevor said at January 25, 2004 3:56 PM:

yes i want to if it will work in the nassau bahamas

Adetola Adeniyi said at April 12, 2004 1:05 PM:

This is more of an enqiury I would like to have an idea of how much it cost to start such a company in a third world country where the GPS is non existent

zino Asalor said at April 20, 2004 12:35 PM:

I'm interested in getting more information on the GPS tracking system for cars in Africa, so as to ascertain its workability in this region.Pls reply

slick said at April 28, 2004 4:16 PM:

any feed back on minnesota laws would be helpful..

Tom Mills said at August 25, 2004 12:51 AM:

I am using these devices currently and only use them to help track the vehicles in case of traffic signals and what not. I can track them real time up to 22 hours (battery length) and not have to worry about braking any laws. I have spoken to many attorneys here in Colorado, and they seem not to find any laws that I break. I am checking now on any Federal laws, such as the new terrorism laws, so not to intrude on them or the 4th amendment. My devices send out a signal every 2 minutes so that I am only 2 minutes behind my subject. If anyone knows any reason why this is breaking any laws, please let me know.

devo said at August 30, 2004 7:35 PM:

what are the law with g.p.s. in the work place?

sam said at December 5, 2004 9:40 AM:

This is illegal in California under PC637.7 unless authorized by registered owner. I think that PI in Virginia needs to look close at the penal code to make sure he is not violating the law. Im a PI in Ca.

Nonya said at February 1, 2006 8:13 AM:

I would like to know how a person would be able to detect if a tracking device has been put on their car. I can understand the use of a tracking device with the proper legal proceedures, but because of its intrusion of privacy, I would like to know what would the police do if someone suspected that a tracking device has been put on a persons car by someone who is out to harm them or their family? 30 days in jail would not suffice.

Joe said at October 11, 2006 1:49 PM:

It is illegal in most states.

yashun solomon said at April 5, 2007 8:03 PM:

i want info gps tracking

allen barry said at May 20, 2007 12:25 AM:

how can i tell if a tracking devise is registered or legal to use against a driver

Chris Cantrell said at May 16, 2009 7:59 PM:

GPS tracking can violate Federal and many state laws. The problem in dealing with these devices is the reasonable expectation of privacy and the technology involved. The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center states that law enforcement must be very specific in installing these without a warrant and if there is any question a warrant must be obtained. Proprietary interest must also be established and the fact that a PI is a third party. Even dealers and Finance companies must obtain a signed release from a customer that they are aware that a tracking device is installed on the vehicle.

S Stevens said at May 28, 2009 9:28 AM:

Car tracking devices are being used for dometic use. What happens when a future ex-husband puts one of these devices on her car without her being aware?, just so he can keep tract of where she is at all times. Is this an invasion of privacey?

sara said at July 4, 2009 4:35 AM:

I know somebody who is on drugs bad! He's been missing in action for a week! He doesn't call or answer his phone. I looked everywhere for him!! The scary thing is, I know he's right under my nose!!!!!! That's why I would love to put a GPS on his phone and under his car without him ever knowing!!! He needs help very badly and I'm losing this war!! He's a grown man and he's going to contiue to do what he wants. I think he lost his job again!! I love this man! He is my bestfriend and I can't help him!!!!! If anybody has a GPS that they are willing to donate to me for his car and his cell phone, that way when he come's home, when ever that is I can do it ASAP!! Please somebody help!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Keith Xavier said at November 27, 2009 11:50 AM:

You people need to THINK before getting all hysterical.

First of all, I totally support the use of GPS tracking by ACTUAL law enforcement personnel ( NOT wannabe's like professional informers/or hobbyists with mental problems ) on substantiated cases with previous evidence.

Secondly, the use of GPS by PI's in particular would too often allow CRIMINALS to circumvent such laws.

Third, now they're in the hands of rival gangs, serial rapists, stalkers, murderers and while they might get arrested for that particular crime, they won't be charged for having used a GPS if we relax the laws.

As for private dicks using them; these knuckleheads complicate the lives of real law enforcement enough as it is. It is totally ILLEGAL for a PI to trespass on private property to place a GPS unit. That car IS private property. Buster, you better not leave prints or your firm could be sued into oblivion by your 'target'.

In absence of CONSENT, no one EXCPET the police/feds should be able to circumvent that and even then, not without a warrant. This is as much to protect the case the police and DA are building as it is the rights of the accused and/or innocent.

My suggestion is if you believe a GPS is placed on your car or might have reason to - simply take it to a garage or have a friend look under and around the chassis/windshields periodically etc. Beat it with a hammer and tape it back onto your car. The dingbats will know you're on to them. Also, park your car on private property and in view of a motion detecting video camera. When someone committs the CRIME of placing something on your property, you'll have the evidence. Sue them into oblivion and press charges to the full extent of the law as your state provides.

I knew of one idiot PI who tried this. The person was surveillance aware and had a friend drive their car around. The PI got the info but guess what - no 'evidence' whatsoever of anything because it wasn't the 'target' driving LOL

If you're not a cop, don't act like one.
If you are cop, ALWAYS act like one.

Anonymous said at November 28, 2009 12:53 PM:

What do you do if a finance company has put a gps locator in your vehicle hooked up electronically, and tried to conceal it from you? Didnt let you know it was going to be placed? Is there any legal action you can pursue?

Bob Badour said at November 28, 2009 2:04 PM:

A finance company is unlikely to ever do such a thing. Either a collection agent has been fucking with your head and there never was any tracking device, or you pissed someone else off.

Michael said at March 6, 2010 7:46 AM:

The use of GPS tracking devices in and of itself is not illegal, at least not federally, that I am aware of. If anyone knows of any federal laws pertaining to their use, please post it here for all to see. Second, the argument about right to privacy is moot. The US Supreme court, and common sense, have held that a vehicle on the road has NO REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY, which is the litmus test for such devices, including video surveillance. AS long as the investigator does not trespass onto private property to place or retrieve the device, he does not violate the law. What I usually do, in cases where I do not have permission of a spouse or vehicle's owner, is wait until the vehicle leaves the property and follow to Wal-Mart or wherever, a neutral or public parking lot, and then place/retrieve the device. No laws broken.

Raven said at March 31, 2010 4:20 PM:

My finance company did put a gps in my car and admitted to putting it there. I was having an after market alarm installed and my friend asks "did you have a gps installed" I said no, and we started looking up the device. My husband started to wonder and called the finance company. He asked "did your company install a tracking device in my wife's car" their answer was "yea, you weren't suppose to find that". I reviewed the finance docs and No where on them does it state that I consented to being monitored by them. So I disconnected the device and mailed it to a good friend in St. Kitts! Track me now! So beware of the small finance co.!

LARRY A. PETERS said at July 10, 2010 2:00 AM:

If ou are in the Commonwealth of Virginia you should read the code. It basically gives a spouse the right to protect themselves from the other person. It does not qualify whose vehicle is involved, it considers the person.

Anonymous said at September 3, 2010 10:58 AM:

I live in Colorado, My soon to be ex hired PI to follow me around for about4 weeks, they did put a GPS system in my car wich I found, I guess they weren't that smart!!!! My question is - My car is a private property of mine, is it legal to install a GPS system on my car? Please let me know.

Carlo said at September 23, 2010 12:53 AM:

To Michael, who probably was smoking pot while writing his post. A vehicle IS A PRIVATE PROPERTY. You are not allowed to mess with other person's vehicle without his permission, either it is scratching paint, breaking windows, painting it with a spraypaint, installing GPS tracker or even spitting on it. If you get caught while smaking your GPS on somebody's car near Walmart, you will be left with some teeth missing in the best case. Go and try then to find a law that would say that a person cannot protect his property (vehicle).

sm said at October 27, 2010 10:31 PM:

can someone please tell me if a gps tracker can be hidden in the dash board or the interior door panels. I think I have a gps on my car where what areas should i look for one? I tired near the tires, under the bumpers, any other ideas.
Thanks
sm

colorado pi said at March 16, 2011 8:19 AM:

To anonymous in Colorado: why would your soone to be ex feel the need to hire a PI? The law in CO contains no provision that using a GPS is illegal by with either a PI or private citizen. So, whatever the reason was? If you clean it up, there will be nothing to discover through GPS or other means.

beingtracked said at April 20, 2011 9:43 AM:

Here you go, people. This is the law in the State of Colorado. If you're a PI & you place a GPS device on someone's car- you & the person that hired you are guilty of stalking & harassment:

18-3-602. Stalking - penalty - definitions.





(1) A person commits stalking if directly, or indirectly through another person, the person knowingly:





(a) Makes a credible threat to another person and, in connection with the threat, repeatedly follows, approaches, contacts, or places under surveillance that person, a member of that person's immediate family, or someone with whom that person has or has had a continuing relationship; or





(b) Makes a credible threat to another person and, in connection with the threat, repeatedly makes any form of communication with that person, a member of that person's immediate family, or someone with whom that person has or has had a continuing relationship, regardless of whether a conversation ensues; or





(c) Repeatedly follows, approaches, contacts, places under surveillance, or makes any form of communication with another person, a member of that person's immediate family, or someone with whom that person has or has had a continuing relationship in a manner that would cause a reasonable person to suffer serious emotional distress and does cause that person, a member of that person's immediate family, or someone with whom that person has or has had a continuing relationship to suffer serious emotional distress. For purposes of this paragraph (c), a victim need not show that he or she received professional treatment or counseling to show that he or she suffered serious emotional distress.





(2) For the purposes of this part 6:





(a) Conduct "in connection with" a credible threat means acts that further, advance, promote, or have a continuity of purpose, and may occur before, during, or after the credible threat.





(b) "Credible threat" means a threat, physical action, or repeated conduct that would cause a reasonable person to be in fear for the person's safety or the safety of his or her immediate family or of someone with whom the person has or has had a continuing relationship. The threat need not be directly expressed if the totality of the conduct would cause a reasonable person such fear.





(c) "Immediate family" includes the person's spouse and the person's parent, grandparent, sibling, or child.





(d) "Repeated" or "repeatedly" means on more than one occasion.





(3) A person who commits stalking:





(a) Commits a class 5 felony for a first offense except as otherwise provided in subsection (5) of this section; or





(b) Commits a class 4 felony for a second or subsequent offense, if the offense occurs within seven years after the date of a prior offense for which the person was convicted.





(4) Stalking is an extraordinary risk crime that is subject to the modified presumptive sentencing range specified in section 18-1.3-401 (10).





(5) If, at the time of the offense, there was a temporary or permanent protection order, injunction, or condition of bond, probation, or parole or any other court order in effect against the person, prohibiting the behavior described in this section, the person commits a class 4 felony. In addition, when a violation under this section is committed in connection with a violation of a court order, including but not limited to any protection order or any order that sets forth the conditions of a bond, any sentence imposed for the violation pursuant to this subsection (5) shall run consecutively and not concurrently with any sentence imposed pursuant to section 18-6-803.5 and with any sentence imposed in a contempt proceeding for violation of the court order.





(6) Nothing in this section shall be construed to alter or diminish the inherent authority of the court to enforce its orders through civil or criminal contempt proceedings; however, before a criminal contempt proceeding is heard before the court, notice of the proceedings shall be provided to the district attorney for the judicial district of the court where the proceedings are to be heard and the district attorney for the judicial district in which the alleged act of criminal contempt occurred. The district attorney for either district shall be allowed to appear and argue for the imposition of contempt sanctions.





(7) A peace officer shall have a duty to respond as soon as reasonably possible to a report of stalking and to cooperate with the alleged victim in investigating the report.





Source: L. 2010: Entire part added with relocations, (HB 10-1233), ch. 88, p. 294, ァ 1, effective August 11.





Editor's note: This section is similar to former ァ 18-9-111 (4)(b), (4)(c), (5), and (6), as they existed prior to 2010.






RECENT ANNOTATIONS




Defendant's course of conduct amounted to a single crime for which the general assembly has not authorized multiple punishments. The plain words of the statute define the unit of prosecution for the crime of stalking as a continuous course of conduct by which one repeatedly follows, approaches, contacts, or places another under surveillance. Furthermore, the statute requires that the acts constituting stalking must be performed "repeatedly". Consequently, per victim, stalking can occur only when there is conduct comprising two or more occurrences of the specified acts. People v. Herron, __ P.3d __ (Colo. App. 2010).






ANNOTATION




Annotator's note. Since ァ 18-3-602 is similar to ァ 18-9-111 as it existed prior to the 2010 amendments to this part, relevant cases construing that provision have been included in the annotations to this section.





Subsection (4)(a)(II) held constitutional. By burdening only those communications furthering, promoting, or advancing an expressed credible threat, subsection (4)(a)(II) does not reach protected conduct. People v. Baer, 973 P.2d 1225 (Colo. 1999) (decided prior to 1999 amendment to subsection (4)).





Nor is the provision void for vagueness since a person of ordinary intelligence can know what conduct is proscribed. People v. Baer, 973 P.2d 1225 (Colo. 1999) (decided prior to 1999 amendment to subsection (4)).





Requiring a jury to determine "reasonableness" does not make subsection (4)(b)(III) unconstitutionally vague. The statute prohibits contact that inflicts "serious emotional distress" and provides an objective "reasonable person" standard to measure whether the emotional distress inflicted upon the victim was "serious". Thus, it provides notice that conduct that would cause a reasonable person serious emotional distress is prohibited. The only uncertainty raised by the statute is whether the conduct would cause a reasonable person serious emotional distress, and the determination of "reasonableness" is a question for the jury. People v. Yascavage, 80 P.3d 899 (Colo. App. 2003), aff'd on other grounds, 101 P.3d 1090 (Colo. 2004).





Subsections (4)(b)(I) and (4)(b)(III) are not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. The definition of "credible threat" does not substantially burden speech and is specifically sufficient to provide guidance to the public. The term "serious emotional distress" sets forth an identifiable objective standard for measuring the proscribed conduct and therefore is not unconstitutionally vague. People v. Cross, 114 P.3d 1 (Colo. App. 2004), rev'd on other grounds, 127 P.3d 71 (Colo. 2006); People v. Richardson, 181 P.3d 340 (Colo. App. 2007).





Right to access to courts does not include right to file lawsuits in abusive manner; therefore, the stalking convictions that were based, in part, on defendant filing 13 frivolous lawsuits against the victim did not violate the defendant's right to access the courts. People v. Richardson, 181 P.3d 340 (Colo. App. 2007).





A defendant does not need to know that his or her conduct would cause a reasonable person serious emotional distress. This reading of subsection (4)(b)(III) would impart a nonexistent requirement that the defendant must intend to cause serious emotional distress. The defendant must only be aware of his or her conduct, and the result of that conduct is evaluated under an objective standard to which his or her specific intent is irrelevant. People v. Yascavage, 80 P.3d 899 (Colo. App. 2003), aff'd, 101 P.3d 1090 (Colo. 2004).





The mens rea of knowingly in the crime of emotional distress harassment by stalking does not apply to the element that the stalker be aware that his or her conduct would cause serious emotional distress to a reasonable person. Generally, the mental state applies to all elements of an offense unless the legislative intent is to limit its application. The general assembly recognized the stalker may be oblivious to reality of the emotional distress he or she is causing, and, therefore, it would be absurd to allow a defendant so out-of-touch with reality to avoid criminal prosecution. People v. Cross, 127 P.3d 71 (Colo. 2006).





An electronic surveillance device installed on the victim's car "repeatedly" stored information about her movements thereby allowing the defendant to gain information about her on repeated occasions, and therefore satisfying the requirements of this section. People v. Sullivan, 53 P.3d 1181 (Colo. App. 2002).





The phrase "in connection with" indicates an intention by the general assembly that a continued relationship between the credible threat and the repeated communications is contemplated. People v. Baer, 973 P.2d 1225 (Colo. 1999) (decided prior to 1999 amendment to subsection (4)).





A person must directly, or indirectly through another person, knowingly make a credible threat to another person and repeatedly make any form of communication with the recipient of the threat. People v. Baer, 973 P.2d 1225 (Colo. 1999) (decided prior to 1999 amendment to subsection (4)).





The repeated communications may occur before, during, or after the credible threat but they must be connected to the threat. People v. Baer, 973 P.2d 1225 (Colo. 1999) (decided prior to 1999 amendment to subsection (4)).





Whether the repeated communications are "in connection with" the threat is a matter of fact just as the existence of a credible threat itself. People v. Baer, 973 P.2d 1225 (Colo. 1999) (decided prior to 1999 amendment to subsection (4)).





Trial court erred in not instructing the jury that defendant must knowingly engage in conduct taken in connection with the threat. People v. Suazo, 87 P.3d 124 (Colo. App. 2003).





The defendant could not have been charged with a violation of subsection (4) until all of the elements of the crime are completed. People v. Bastian, 981 P.2d 203 (Colo. App. 1998).





The defendant may be charged with increased penalties because of amendments to subsection (4) that became effective in July of 1995 when the defendant did not consummate following the victim until August, but had committed elements of the offense prior to July. People v. Bastian, 981 P.2d 203 (Colo. App. 1998).





The phrase "under surveillance" includes electronic surveillance that records a person's whereabouts as that person moves from one location to another and allows the stalker to access that information either simultaneously or shortly thereafter. People v. Sullivan, 53 P.3d 1181 (Colo. App. 2002).





Defendant's statement that he was going to kill the victim if she did not see him was sufficient evidence to support a finding that he had made a credible threat. People v. Suazo, 87 P.3d 124 (Colo. App. 2003).





Evidence sufficient to support a finding that contact was made in connection with a credible threat. Defendant called the victim repeatedly on one day and threatened that he would kill her if she did not see him. Following this threat, defendant contacted the victim numerous times in person and by telephone and repeatedly asked to see her. This evidence is sufficient to support a finding that the contact was made in connection with a credible threat. People v. Suazo, 87 P.3d 124 (Colo. App. 2003).





Serious emotional distress was supported by the evidence where the victim testified that she suspected the defendant was stalking her for over a month, that she was concerned about constantly being watched, that she took alternate routes to her destinations, that she was uncomfortable and had stomach aches, that she had trouble sleeping and was anxious, and that she took a leave of absence from work to enter a safe house for her safety. People v. Sullivan, 53 P.3d 1181 (Colo. App. 2002).





Evidence sufficient to support a finding beyond a reasonable doubt of serious emotional distress where the victim testified that defendant's behavior caused her to change her work schedule, take days off from work, and feel unsafe; she was nervous and had trouble sleeping; and she felt she was constantly being watched by defendant. The statute is clear that serious emotional distress need not be such as would compel professional treatment or a breakdown. People v. Cross, 114 P.3d 1 (Colo. App. 2004), rev'd on other grounds, 127 P.3d 71 (Colo. 2006).





Evidence sufficient to establish a "credible threat". The credible threat does not need to be separate from the harassing behavior or verbal. Therefore, evidence that the defendant was only at the victim's place of employment when the victim was there, the defendant would approach and make eye contact with the victim, and the defendant found out where the victim went to church and attended that church was sufficient to establish a "credible threat". People v. Cross, 114 P.3d 1 (Colo. App. 2004), rev'd on other grounds, 127 P.3d 71 (Colo. 2006).





Court's instruction for harassment by stalking was appropriate. The court instructed the jury that "knowingly" applied to both the credible threat and to the conduct in connection with the threat. People v. Cross, 114 P.3d 1 (Colo. App. 2004), rev'd on other grounds, 127 P.3d 71 (Colo. 2006).





The mens rea of knowingly in the crime of emotional distress harassment by stalking does not apply to the element that the stalker be aware that his or her conduct would cause serious emotional distress to a reasonable person. Generally, the mental state applies to all elements of an offense unless the legislative intent is to limit its application. The general assembly recognized the stalker may be oblivious to reality of the emotional distress he or she is causing, and, therefore, it would be absurd to allow a defendant so out-of-touch with reality to avoid criminal prosecution. People v. Cross, 127 P.3d 71 (Colo. 2006).





The penalty provision in subsection (5)(a.5) establishes a sentencing enhancer. Since the statute does not prescribe a burden of proof, the prosecution is required to prove the prior conviction by only a preponderance of the evidence, and the court may properly determine the issue without the jury. Therefore, the court erred in admitting the prior conviction into evidence as an element of the harassment by stalking offense. The error required reversal since the evidence was highly prejudicial and had no or little probative value. People v. Cross, 114 P.3d 1 (Colo. App. 2004), rev'd on other grounds, 127 P.3d 71 (Colo. 2006).





Because the elements of violation of a mandatory restraining order and the elements of harassment by stalking are not the same, the subsequent prosecution of defendant did not violate double jeopardy protections. People v. Carey, 198 P.3d 1223 (Colo. App. 2008).



覧覧覧覧覧

concerned parent said at May 16, 2011 2:03 PM:

This is to "Being Tracked"-

While that was a lovely reprint of the CRS, I don't see anywhere that it say the use of a GPS is illegal. Just like the bleeding heart liberals, or anonymous who was being surveilled by her soon to be ex, you can't take the written law and redefine what is written.

It should be noted that the husband of the woman above in Colorado who was using the PI to document her parenting, lifestyle and addiction? HE WAS ACQUITTED by jury of the false charges brought by the author of the post! The INTENT of the parties and, more importantly, the CREDIBILITY of the "victim" have everything to do with whether a case should be prosecuted. To sugggest that a Private Investigator or a parent concerned about the safety of his son, should not be able to gather evidence to present to a court of law, in an effort to protect that child, is ludicrous!!!

Anonymous said at August 25, 2011 9:59 AM:

In the State of TX the following statute exists:

Degree
Unlawful installation of a tracking device is knowingly installing an electronic or mechanical tracking device to a vehicle owned or lease by another, and is a Class A
Misdemeanor.

Statute(s)

ァ 16.06. UNLAWFUL INSTALLATION OF TRACKING DEVICE.
(a) In this section:
(1) "Electronic or mechanical tracking device" means a device capable of emitting an electronic frequency or other signal that may be used by a person to identify, monitor, or record the location of another person or object.
(2) "Motor vehicle" has the meaning assigned by Section 501.002, Transportation Code.
(b) A person commits an offense if the person knowingly installs an electronic or mechanical tracking device on a motor vehicle owned or leased by another person.
(c) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(d) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the person:
(1) obtained the effective consent of the owner or lessee of the motor vehicle before the electronic or mechanical tracking device was installed;
(2) assisted another whom the person reasonably believed to be a peace officer authorized to install the device in the course of a criminal investigation or pursuant to an order of a court to gather information for a law enforcement agency; or
(3) was a private investigator licensed under Chapter 1702, Occupations Code, who installed the device:
(A) with written consent:
(i) to install the device given by the owner or lessee of the motor vehicle; and
(ii) to enter private residential property, if that entry was necessary to install the device, given by the owner or lessee of the property; or
(B) pursuant to an order of or other authorization from a court to gather information.
(e) This section does not apply to a peace officer who installed the device in the course of a criminal investigation or pursuant to an order of a court to gather information for a law enforcement agency.
Added by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 728, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1999. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1420, Sec. 14.828, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.
Amended by:
Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1122, Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2009.

Caselaw

Collateral Consequences

Notes
The statute gives affirmative defenses for consensual installation, for installation with a court authorization, for reasonable cooperation with peace officers, and for private investigators, with written consent from the owner or lessee of the vehicle.

Andrew said at October 5, 2011 11:41 AM:

I assume it's really an exciting thing to have GPS embedded on car and keep an eye on other's activities. It may be a success but proper authentication is necessary before one start using such a service.

Curious said at January 30, 2012 6:59 PM:

I too have been in a situation such as this. I just recently ended a two year divorce. For the past 8 months of the divorce, I started to date a guy. I do not do drugs, affiliate with anyone with a criminal background, and the 澱oyfriend has a successful business and again NO criminal background.
The ex-husband parents hired a man to follow me around; only to prove that I was dating someone at the divorce trial. The man attached a tracking device to my car, and followed me for three months. The PI would show up at boyfriend痴 residents attempting to sell wood, show up at his business to ask his employees questions, and even staked my grandmother痴 house out.
In court, my attorney asked the PI who hired him, which is when he answered 鍍he parents- he named their names, my attorney asked if he ever met with 杜y ex whom he replied that he never met nor had a conversation with!
If he truly thought that I was a bad parent, I would think that this man would have participated in this process! Never the less, he did not..moving on
Here is where I get confused with the whole PI thing and tracking devices. I bought the car after separation, but divorce was still pending. So, I suppose legally the ex could be entitled to the car? Problem with this is that, ex never spoke with or hired this man. How can the parents give permission to attach devices to my car? I am a little confused by this
TO THE MAN WHO IS ATTACHING DEVICES @ WAL-MART.. I am an assistant manager at Wal-Mart where I spent more than a few days off watching footage of my vehicle 塗oping to see the man tampering with my vehicle. Wal-Mart is private property, yes it is 菟ublic but it is owned by Wal-Mart! This is not owned by the city or else-where! You cannot tamper with a person痴 vehicle legally on their property! I sure wish I would have seen the guy, but believe he attached it in my driveway!
I live in Missouri, if anyone knows of any laws or tips to steer me in the right direction.

Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

                       
Go Read More Posts On FuturePundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ゥ