Illinois
Illinois 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 Illinois, hiding one on someone else's vehicle is usually a crime, but the statute has a consent rule that surprises almost everyone who reads it.
This guide is part of our GPS Tracking Laws by State series. It explains Illinois' vehicle tracking statute, the owner-consent loophole that can make spousal tracking legal, how AirTag cases get charged, and what to do if you find a device on your car.
Is It Legal to Put a GPS Tracker on a Car in Illinois?
Only with the right consent. Under 720 ILCS 5/21-2.5, a person or entity in Illinois may not use an electronic tracking device to determine the location or movement of a person.
The statute defines an electronic tracking device as any device attached to a vehicle that reveals its location or movement by transmitting electronic signals. That covers hardwired GPS units, battery-powered magnetic trackers, OBD port plug-ins, and an AirTag stuck to a bumper or hidden in a wheel well.
Here is the short version for common scenarios:
- Your own car, registered to you: Legal. You are the consenting owner.
- A car registered only to someone else: Illegal without that person's consent.
- A car you co-own with a spouse: Generally legal, because either registered owner can consent. More on this below.
- A company car you drive for work: Legal for the employer. Business vehicles are expressly exempt.
Illinois' Vehicle Tracking Law (720 ILCS 5/21-2.5)
Illinois put its vehicle tracking ban in Article 21 of the Criminal Code of 2012, the article titled Damage and Trespass to Property, immediately after the section on criminal trespass to vehicles. The prohibition is broad, but the statute then lists several exemptions that do most of the work in real cases.
Tracking is permitted when:
- The registered owner, lessor, or lessee of the vehicle consents to the use of the tracking device on that vehicle
- A business tracks its own vehicles, meaning a vehicle owned or leased by a business authorized to transact business in Illinois, used to track vehicles driven by its employees, affiliates, or contractors
- A state agency tracks vehicles under its control, driven by its employees or contractors
- The tracking comes from telematic services installed by the manufacturer, or installed by or with the consent of the owner or lessee, that the owner or lessee has subscribed to (think OnStar or a connected-car app)
- A law enforcement agency uses the device lawfully
Everything outside those exemptions is a Class A misdemeanor.
Who Can Legally Track a Vehicle: The Consent Rule That Surprises People
Most state tracking laws protect the person being tracked. Illinois protects the vehicle's registered owner, and then extends that owner's consent outward.
The statute provides that consent by the owner or lessee of the vehicle constitutes consent for any other driver or passenger of that vehicle. In plain terms, the owner's permission covers everyone who uses the car, whether they know about the tracker or not.
That single sentence drives most real-world outcomes:
- Co-owner spouses. If both names are on the registration, either spouse can consent to a tracker, and the other spouse's objection does not make it a crime under 21-2.5. Divorce lawyers in Illinois see this fact pattern constantly.
- Parents and teen drivers. A parent who owns or leases the car can track it while a teenager drives, no matter whose name is on the insurance.
- Title in one name only. If the car is registered solely to your spouse, partner, or ex, you are not the owner and you cannot lawfully attach a tracker. The co-owner rule cuts both ways.
One important caution: the consent rule only shields you from the tracking statute itself. A campaign of monitoring an ex or estranged spouse can still support a stalking charge or a civil no-contact order, even when the tracking device was technically legal to install. Courts look at the whole course of conduct, not just the registration slip.
Can My Employer Track My Car in Illinois?
If the vehicle belongs to the company, yes. The statute expressly exempts a business tracking vehicles it owns or leases when they are driven by employees, affiliates, or contractors. The employer is also typically the registered owner or lessee, which independently satisfies the consent rule.
Illinois has no law requiring an employer to tell you the company car is tracked, and no law limiting tracking to work hours. Some states have moved that direction, but Illinois has not.
Your personal car is a different story. An employer has no exemption for a vehicle registered to you. To track your personal car, even one you use for work, the employer needs your consent as the registered owner or lessee. A unilateral tracker on an employee's personal vehicle is a Class A misdemeanor like anyone else's.
If workplace monitoring concerns you beyond GPS, see our guide to Illinois recording laws, which covers the state's strict all-party consent rules for audio.
AirTags and Item Trackers: The Stalking and Cyberstalking Route
The vehicle statute only reaches devices attached to a vehicle. An AirTag, Tile, or SmartTag dropped into a purse, coat pocket, or child's backpack falls outside 21-2.5 entirely.
That does not make it legal. Illinois prosecutors charge covert person-tracking under the stalking statute, 720 ILCS 5/12-7.3. Stalking is a knowing course of conduct, meaning two or more acts, directed at a specific person that the defendant knows or should know would cause a reasonable person to fear for their safety or suffer emotional distress.
The statute's definition of a course of conduct expressly includes acts in which a defendant follows, monitors, observes, or surveils a person by any action, method, device, or means. Planting a tracker and then checking its location readily fits.
Cyberstalking under 720 ILCS 5/12-7.5 covers harassment and monitoring carried out through electronic communications and devices, and is charged the same way in tracker cases that run through phones and apps.
Federal law adds another layer. The federal stalking statute, 18 U.S.C. 2261A, reaches anyone who uses an electronic communication system or electronic monitoring to engage in a course of conduct that places a victim in fear or causes substantial emotional distress, when interstate elements are present.
And for government tracking, the Supreme Court held in United States v. Jones (2012) that attaching a GPS device to a vehicle and monitoring its movements is a Fourth Amendment search; the Court did not decide whether that search required a warrant. Separately, the Illinois statute's exemption covers only "lawful use by a law enforcement agency."
Penalties for Illegal GPS Tracking in Illinois
| Conduct | Charge | Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Tracking a vehicle without owner or lessee consent (720 ILCS 5/21-2.5) | Class A misdemeanor | Up to 364 days in jail, fine up to $2,500 |
| Stalking, including tracking as part of a course of conduct (720 ILCS 5/12-7.3) | Class 4 felony | 1 to 3 years in prison, fines up to $25,000 |
| Stalking, second or subsequent offense | Class 3 felony | 2 to 5 years in prison |
| Cyberstalking (720 ILCS 5/12-7.5) | Class 4 felony (Class 3 if repeat) | 1 to 3 years in prison |
| Violating a stalking no-contact order | Class A misdemeanor (Class 4 felony if repeat) | Up to 364 days in jail |
| Federal stalking with electronic monitoring (18 U.S.C. 2261A) | Federal felony | Up to 5 years in federal prison, more if injury results |
A misdemeanor tracking charge can escalate quickly. Once prosecutors can show two or more tracking or surveillance acts directed at someone who was put in fear, the case moves into felony stalking territory.
Civil Lawsuits and Stalking No-Contact Orders
Section 21-2.5 is a criminal statute and does not create its own right to sue. Illinois victims still have two solid civil paths.
Intrusion upon seclusion. The Illinois Supreme Court formally recognized this privacy tort in Lawlor v. North American Corporation of Illinois (2012). A victim can sue someone who intentionally intruded into their private affairs in a way highly offensive to a reasonable person. Weeks of covert location surveillance is a textbook fact pattern, and damages can include emotional distress and, in egregious cases, punitive damages.
Stalking no-contact orders. The Stalking No Contact Order Act, 740 ILCS 21, lets a victim of stalking behavior get a civil protective order without any criminal conviction and without any prior relationship with the stalker. The order can prohibit following, monitoring, surveilling, and contacting the victim, and violating it is itself a crime.
Victims of a current or former partner may instead seek an order of protection under domestic violence law. Our guide to Illinois restraining order laws walks through both options, deadlines, and what evidence helps.
What to Do If You Find a Tracker on Your Car
- Do not destroy it. The device is evidence. Its serial number can identify the buyer, and AirTags can be traced to the Apple ID that registered them.
- Photograph everything. Capture the device where you found it, the date, and the vehicle before touching anything.
- Call local police. Report it under 720 ILCS 5/21-2.5 and, if there is a pattern of following or harassment, ask that it be documented as possible stalking.
- Check your phone for tracker alerts. iPhones flag unknown AirTags automatically, and Android's unknown tracker alerts do the same. Save screenshots of any alerts.
- Consider a stalking no-contact order. If you know or suspect who placed it, the civil order under 740 ILCS 21 adds enforceable legal distance while any criminal case proceeds.
- Sweep the car. Common hiding spots are wheel wells, bumpers, the OBD port under the dash, and under seats. A mechanic can check hardwired locations.
GPS trackers often travel with other surveillance. If you are dealing with cameras as well, our surveillance camera laws hub covers what is legal to record and where.
Sources
- 720 ILCS 5/21-2.5, Electronic tracking devices (Illinois General Assembly)
- 720 ILCS 5/12-7.3, Stalking (Illinois General Assembly)
- 720 ILCS 5/12-7.5, Cyberstalking (Illinois General Assembly)
- 740 ILCS 21, Stalking No Contact Order Act (Illinois General Assembly)
- 730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-55, Class A misdemeanor sentencing (Illinois General Assembly)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) (Cornell LII)
- 18 U.S.C. 2261A, Federal stalking statute (Cornell LII)
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws change and individual situations differ. Consult a licensed Illinois attorney about your specific circumstances.
More Illinois Laws
- Illinois Dashcam Laws
- Illinois Data Privacy Laws
- Illinois Drone Laws
- Illinois Employee Monitoring Laws
- Illinois Recording Laws
- Illinois Restraining Order Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it legal to put a GPS tracker on my spouse's car in Illinois?
It depends on the registration. If you are a registered owner or lessee of the vehicle, your consent satisfies 720 ILCS 5/21-2.5 and extends to any driver or passenger, so tracking the car is generally not a crime under that statute. If the car is registered only to your spouse, attaching a tracker without their consent is a Class A misdemeanor. Either way, a pattern of monitoring can still support stalking charges or a no-contact order.
Can I put a GPS tracker on my teenager's car?
Yes, if you are the registered owner or lessee of the vehicle. A parent's consent as owner covers the teen driver and any passengers. If the car is titled in the teen's own name and they are an adult, you need their consent like anyone else.
Can a private investigator legally place a GPS tracker in Illinois?
Only with the consent of the vehicle's registered owner, lessor, or lessee. Illinois gives private investigators no special exemption in 720 ILCS 5/21-2.5. A PI hired by a spouse who co-owns the car is usually covered by that spouse's consent, but a PI tracking a car the client does not own commits the same misdemeanor as the client would.
Is it illegal to put an AirTag in someone's bag in Illinois?
The vehicle tracking statute does not cover it because the device is not attached to a vehicle, but covertly tracking a person this way is routinely charged as stalking under 720 ILCS 5/12-7.3 once there is a course of conduct. Stalking is a Class 4 felony punishable by 1 to 3 years in prison.
Do police need a warrant to put a GPS tracker on my car?
In United States v. Jones (2012), the Supreme Court held that attaching a GPS device to a vehicle and monitoring it is a Fourth Amendment search; the Court did not decide whether a warrant was required. The Illinois statute exempts only the lawful use of tracking devices by law enforcement.
Can my employer track the company car without telling me?
Yes. Businesses are expressly exempt when tracking vehicles they own or lease that are driven by employees or contractors, and Illinois has no statute requiring notice or limiting tracking to work hours. Your personal vehicle is different: an employer needs your consent to track a car registered to you.
Can I sue someone who put a GPS tracker on my car in Illinois?
The criminal statute does not include a private right to sue, but Illinois recognizes the tort of intrusion upon seclusion, confirmed by the Illinois Supreme Court in Lawlor v. North American Corporation of Illinois. You can also seek a civil stalking no-contact order under 740 ILCS 21 without filing any lawsuit for damages.
Is tracking a car I co-own ever still illegal?
The tracking statute is satisfied by one registered owner's consent, but that is not the end of the analysis. Using location data as part of a campaign of following, threats, or harassment can support stalking charges under 720 ILCS 5/12-7.3 and a stalking no-contact order, regardless of whose name is on the title.
Updates
Corrected the description of United States v. Jones: the Supreme Court held that GPS tracking of a vehicle is a Fourth Amendment search but did not decide whether a warrant was required.
Corrected the description of where the vehicle tracking ban sits in the Criminal Code: Article 21 is titled Damage and Trespass to Property, and 720 ILCS 5/21-2.5 follows the criminal trespass to vehicles section within it.
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.
Illinois Compiled Statutes Chapter 720, Act 5 (Criminal Code of 2012)
§ 21-2.5Electronic tracking devices prohibitedIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
(a) As used in this Section: "Electronic tracking device" means any device attached to a vehicle that reveals its location or movement by the transmission of electronic signals. "State agency" means all departments, officers, commissions, boards, institutions, and bodies politic and corporate of the State. The term, however, does not mean the judicial branch, including, without limitation, the several courts of the State, the offices of the clerk of the supreme court and the clerks of the appellate court, and the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts, nor does it mean the legislature or its committees or commissions. "Telematics" includes, but is not limited to, automatic airbag deployment and crash notification, remote diagnostics, navigation, stolen vehicle location, remote door unlock, transmitting emergency and vehicle location information to public safety answering points, and any other service integrating vehicle location technology and wireless communications. "Vehicle" has the meaning ascribed to it in Section 1-217 of the Illinois Vehicle Code.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-26 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ilga.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2021
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- People v. Nordike (Appellate Court of Illinois 2021, 2021 IL App (5th) 190359-U)“…ne count of unlawful use of an electronic tracking device (720 ILCS 5/21-2.5(b) (West 2016)) and one count of offici…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Illinois Employee Monitoring Laws (2026): BIPA, Recording & More
§ 12-7.3StalkingIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
(a) A person commits stalking when he or she knowingly engages in a course of conduct directed at a specific person, and he or she knows or should know that this course of conduct would cause a reasonable person to: (1) fear for his or her safety or the safety of a third person; or (2) suffer other emotional distress. (a-3) A person commits stalking when he or she, knowingly and without lawful justification, on at least 2 separate occasions follows another person or places the person under surveillance or any combination thereof and: (1) at any time transmits a threat of immediate or future bodily harm, sexual assault, confinement or restraint and the threat is directed towards that person or a family member of that person; or (2) places that person in reasonable apprehension of immediate or future bodily harm, sexual assault, confinement or restraint to or of that person or a family member of that person.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ilga.gov
Cited in 81 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- People v. Bailey (Illinois Supreme Court 1995, 167 Ill. 2d 210)“…ionality of the stalking and aggravated stalking statutes. (720 ILCS 5/12-7.3, 12-7.4 (West 1992).) In cause No. 7653…”
- People v. Relerford (Illinois Supreme Court 2017, 104 N.E.3d 341)“…efendant, Walter Relerford, was convicted of stalking (720 ILCS 5/12-7.3(a)(1), (a)(2) (West 2012)) and cyb…”
- People v. Ashley (Illinois Supreme Court 2020, 2020 IL 123989)“…defendant Marshall Ashley was convicted of stalking (720 ILCS 5/12-7.3(a)(2), (c)(1) (West 2014)) and was…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Illinois Ring Doorbell Laws: What You Need to Know in 2026
§ 12-7.5CyberstalkingIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
(a) A person commits cyberstalking when he or she engages in a course of conduct using electronic communication directed at a specific person, and he or she knows or should know that would cause a reasonable person to: (1) fear for his or her safety or the safety of a third person; or (2) suffer other emotional distress. (a-3) A person commits cyberstalking when he or she, knowingly and without lawful justification, on at least 2 separate occasions, harasses another person through the use of electronic communication and: (1) at any time transmits a threat of immediate or future bodily harm, sexual assault, confinement, or restraint and the threat is directed towards that person or a family member of that person; or (2) places that person or a family member of that person in reasonable apprehension of immediate or future bodily harm, sexual assault, confinement, or restraint; or (3) at any time knowingly solicits the commission of an act by any person which would be a violation of this Code directed towards that person or a family member of that person.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ilga.gov
Cited in 19 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- People v. Relerford (Illinois Supreme Court 2017, 104 N.E.3d 341)“…5/12-7.3(a)(1), (a)(2) (West 2012)) and cyberstalking (720 ILCS 5/12-7.5(a)(1), (a)(2) (West 2012)) and was sent…”
- People v. Crawford (Appellate Court of Illinois 2020, 2019 IL App (1st) 160184)“…son or a family member of that person.” 720 ILCS 5/12-7.5(a), (a-3) (West 2014). Before Re…”
- People v. Sucic (Appellate Court of Illinois 2010)“…conviction for cyberstalking is a Class 3 felony.” 720 ILCS 5/12-7.5 (West 2008). The cyberstalking statute…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Illinois Sexting Laws: Legal Consequences and Penalties
Illinois Compiled Statutes Chapter 740, Act 21 (Stalking No Contact Order Act)
§ 10DefinitionsIn force
For the purposes of this Act: "Course of conduct" means 2 or more acts, including but not limited to acts in which a respondent directly, indirectly, or through third parties, by any action, method, device, or means follows, monitors, observes, surveils, or threatens a person, workplace, school, or place of worship, engages in other contact, or interferes with or damages a person's property or pet. A course of conduct may include using any electronic tracking system or acquiring tracking information to determine the targeted person's location, movement, or travel patterns. A course of conduct may also include contact via electronic communications. The incarceration of a person in a penal institution who commits the course of conduct is not a bar to prosecution under this Section. "Emotional distress" means significant mental suffering, anxiety or alarm.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ilga.gov
Cited in 40 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Nicholson v. Wilson (Appellate Court of Illinois 2013, 373 Ill. Dec. 288)“…r his or her safety” or “suffer emotional distress.” 740 ILCS 21/10 (West 2010). ¶ 15 The evidence a…”
- McNally v. Bredemann (Appellate Court of Illinois 2015, 2015 IL App (1st) 134048)“…the safety of a third person or suffer emotional distress.” 740 ILCS 21/10 (West 2012). A “course of conduc…”
- Piester v. Escobar (Appellate Court of Illinois 2015, 2015 IL App (3d) 140457)“…ar for his or her safety *** or suffer emotional distress.” 740 ILCS 21/10 (West 2012). A course of conduct…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Illinois Compiled Statutes Chapter 730, Act 5 (Unified Code of Corrections)
§ 5-4.5-55CLASS A MISDEMEANORS; SENTENCEIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
For a Class A misdemeanor: (a) TERM. The sentence of imprisonment shall be a determinate sentence of less than one year. (b) PERIODIC IMPRISONMENT. A sentence of periodic imprisonment shall be for a definite term of less than one year, except as otherwise provided in Section 5-5-3 or 5-7-1 (730 ILCS 5/5-5-3 or 5/5-7-1). (c) IMPACT INCARCERATION. See Section 5-8-1.2 (730 ILCS 5/5-8-1.2) concerning eligibility for the county impact incarceration program. (d) PROBATION; CONDITIONAL DISCHARGE. Except as provided in Section 5-5-3 or 5-6-2 (730 ILCS 5/5-5-3 or 5/5-6-2), the period of probation or conditional discharge shall not exceed 2 years. The court shall specify the conditions of probation or conditional discharge as set forth in Section 5-6-3 (730 ILCS 5/5-6-3). (e) FINE. Unless otherwise specified by law, the minimum fine is $75. A fine not to exceed $2,500 for each offense or the amount specified in the offense, whichever is greater, may be imposed. A fine may be imposed in addition to a sentence of conditional discharge, probation, periodic imprisonment, or imprisonment. See Article 9 of Chapter V (730 ILCS 5/Ch. V, Art.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ilga.gov
Cited in 66 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- People v. Fretch (Appellate Court of Illinois 2017, 2017 IL App (2d) 151107)“…nt allowable for such a misdemeanor, which is 364 days. See 730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-55(a) (West 2014) (for a Class A misdemean…”
- People v. McKee (Appellate Court of Illinois 2022, 465 Ill. Dec. 850)“…e a Class A misdemeanor is punishable by imprisonment (see 730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-55(a) (West 2020)), the right to counsel…”
- People v. Mosley (Illinois Supreme Court 2015, 2015 IL 115872)“…for the UUW conviction. See 720 ILCS 5/24-1(b) (West 2012); 730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-55 (West 2012). Pursuant to Illinoi…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Illinois Felony Classes and Misdemeanor Penalties (2026), Illinois Reckless Driving Laws: Penalties, Points and Speed (2026)
United States Code Title 18
§ 2261AStalkingIn forcecited in 56 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: Federal Sexting Laws: Legal Consequences and Penalties, GPS Tracking Laws by State: Is It Legal to Put a Tracker on a Car? (2026), Alabama GPS Tracking Laws: Is It Legal to Put a Tracker on a Car? (2026)
Sources and References
- 720 ILCS 5/21-2.5 - Electronic tracking devices(ilga.gov)
- 720 ILCS 5/12-7.3 - Stalking(ilga.gov)
- 720 ILCS 5/12-7.5 - Cyberstalking(ilga.gov)
- 740 ILCS 21 - Stalking No Contact Order Act(ilga.gov)
- 730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-55 - Class A misdemeanor sentencing(ilga.gov)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012)(law.cornell.edu)
- 18 U.S.C. 2261A - Federal stalking statute(law.cornell.edu)