Missouri GPS Tracking Laws: Is It Legal to Put a Tracker on a Car? (2026)

Missouri is one of the few remaining states with no criminal statute that directly addresses placing a GPS tracker on someone else's car. A jealous ex, a suspicious spouse, or an obsessive acquaintance who slips a tracker under your bumper has not, by that single act, committed a crime under Missouri law.

That gap surprises most people, and it has real consequences. But "no tracking statute" does not mean "anything goes." Repeated tracking can be charged as stalking, federal law reaches the worst cases, and victims can fight back with protection orders and civil lawsuits.

This guide walks through where the legal lines actually sit in Missouri as of 2026, what lawmakers have and have not passed, the stalking amendments that take effect on July 1, 2027, and what to do if you find a tracker on your vehicle.

Is It Legal to Put a GPS Tracker on a Car in Missouri?

If the car is yours, yes. Missouri places no restrictions on tracking a vehicle you own or lease, even if someone else drives it.

If the car belongs to someone else, the honest answer is uncomfortable: no Missouri statute makes the act of attaching a tracker, by itself, a crime. Prosecutors cannot charge "unlawful tracking" because that offense does not exist in the state.

That does not make secret tracking safe. Entering a locked garage or fenced property to plant the device can be trespass. Using the location data to follow, confront, or intimidate someone can quickly become criminal stalking. And tracking that crosses state lines can trigger the federal stalking statute, 18 U.S.C. 2261A.

Missouri Has No Tracking Device Statute

More than half the states now criminalize installing an electronic tracking device on another person's vehicle without consent. Missouri is not one of them.

Lawmakers know about the gap. Representative Strickler filed HB 1570 in 2024 and HB 293 in 2025, each of which would have created the offense of "unlawful tracking of a motor vehicle," a misdemeanor with felony enhancements for repeat offenses. HB 1911, sponsored by Representative Williams, carried the same offense in the 2026 session: knowingly installing, concealing, or otherwise placing an electronic tracking device in or on a motor vehicle without the consent of all owners, with exceptions for criminal investigations, usage-based insurance programs, parents and guardians, and repossession. None of these bills put that offense into Missouri law.

Missouri did pass tracking-relevant legislation in 2026, and it is easy to miss because it is not a vehicle-tracking bill. SS#2 for SB 999, signed by Governor Kehoe on July 13, 2026, repeals and re-enacts RSMo 565.002, 565.225, and 565.227 so that the stalking statutes expressly reach "technological abuse conduct," a new defined term that names location tracking devices. Those changes take effect on July 1, 2027 and are covered in the stalking section below. They do not create a standalone tracking offense, so the core point stands: there is still no crime called unlawful tracking of a motor vehicle in Missouri.

One point of confusion worth clearing up: some websites claim RSMo 575.205 criminalizes installing trackers. It does not. RSMo 575.205 makes it a class D felony to tamper with electronic monitoring equipment that a court or the parole board has ordered someone to wear. It punishes offenders who cut off their own ankle monitors, not people who plant trackers on cars.

When Tracking Becomes Stalking (RSMo 565.225 and 565.227)

Missouri's stalking laws are the main criminal tool against GPS tracking, and what they say about tracking devices changes on July 1, 2027.

Section C of SS#2 for SB 999 sets that date as the effective date for the re-enacted versions of RSMo 565.002, 565.225, and 565.227. Note that the Missouri Revisor of Statutes now displays the July 1, 2027 text of both stalking sections by default, so a reader who follows a plain section link is reading the future version, not the one in force today.

The law in force through June 30, 2027

Stalking in the second degree (RSMo 565.227) applies when a person purposely, through their course of conduct, disturbs or follows another person with the intent to disturb them. It is a class A misdemeanor, rising to a class E felony for repeat offenders or when the victim is a law enforcement officer.

Stalking in the first degree (RSMo 565.225) adds aggravating factors: making threats, violating an order of protection or release conditions, targeting a victim under 17 when the offender is 21 or older, or having a prior domestic assault conviction against the same victim. It is a class E felony, rising to a class D felony in officer-victim and repeat cases.

The key concept is "course of conduct." RSMo 565.002 defines it as "a pattern of conduct composed of two or more acts, which may include communication by any means, over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose." Planting a tracker, checking its location feed repeatedly, and showing up where the victim goes can satisfy that pattern. That definition is carried forward unchanged into the 2027 version.

The limitation matters, and it now has an expiration date. Because the current statute requires conduct that disturbs the victim, purely covert tracking that the victim never discovers is hard to charge. That is the hole the standalone tracking bills were written to close, and it is the hole the 2027 amendments narrow.

What changes on July 1, 2027

From that date, amended RSMo 565.227 applies when a person knowingly engages in a course of conduct directed at a specific person, or technological abuse conduct, which would cause a reasonable person under the circumstances to feel harassed, terrified, or intimidated. New RSMo 565.002(19) defines technological abuse conduct as an act or pattern of behavior intended to harm, threaten, intimidate, control, stalk, harass, or monitor another person using any form of technology, and the list of examples includes location tracking devices. RSMo 565.225 is rewritten around the same reasonable-person standard.

Two practical consequences follow. Tracking is named in the statutory scheme for the first time, so a prosecutor no longer has to argue that a tracking device fits a definition written without it in mind. And because technological abuse conduct is defined as "an act or pattern of behavior," the amended text is not limited to the two-or-more-acts course of conduct the current version requires. The classifications and maximum penalties do not change, and Missouri still has no standalone vehicle-tracking offense either before or after that date.

Who Can Legally Track a Vehicle in Missouri

Some tracking is clearly lawful in Missouri:

• Owners and co-owners. You can put a tracker on a vehicle titled in your name, including a jointly titled family car.
• Parents and guardians. Tracking a vehicle your minor child drives is a normal exercise of parental authority.
• Employers. Companies can track their own fleet vehicles (more below).
• Lenders and repossession companies. Loan and lease agreements routinely include tracking consent.
• Rental and car-sharing companies. Tracking is disclosed in the rental contract.
• Police with a warrant. In United States v. Jones (2012), the U.S. Supreme Court held that attaching a GPS device to a vehicle and using it to monitor the vehicle's movements is a Fourth Amendment search. The Court did not decide whether a warrant is required, because it treated the government's argument that the search was reasonable as forfeited.

The murkiest case is a spouse tracking a car titled only in the other spouse's name. No Missouri statute forbids it, but divorce courts can treat it as harassment, and it can feed a stalking charge or a protection order once the spouse feels disturbed.

Can My Employer Track My Car in Missouri?

Missouri has no statute restricting employer GPS tracking, so the default rules are simple. On a company-owned vehicle, the employer can track essentially without limit, although clear written notice is the industry standard.

Your personal vehicle is different. An employer who hides a tracker on an employee's own car without consent has no statutory shield and invites an invasion of privacy lawsuit, especially for off-duty monitoring. Tracking through a phone app you agreed to install as a condition of work is generally treated as consent.

If your workplace concerns extend to cameras and recorded calls, see our Missouri recording laws guide and our overview of surveillance camera laws.

AirTags and Item Trackers in Missouri

AirTags, Tiles, and similar Bluetooth trackers get the same legal treatment as hardwired GPS units: Missouri has no statute aimed at them. Dropping an AirTag into someone's bag or glove box is not, standing alone, a chargeable offense.

The stalking analysis still applies. Because the course of conduct definition covers "two or more acts ... by any means," repeated AirTag surveillance combined with showing up at the victim's locations fits the pattern. From July 1, 2027, the amended stalking statutes also reach location tracking devices by name. Both Apple and Android phones now alert users to unknown trackers traveling with them, which is often how victims first discover the device.

Penalties

These classifications are not changed by SS#2 for SB 999. What changes on July 1, 2027 is which conduct falls inside the stalking sections, as described above.

Jail and prison terms follow Missouri's general sentencing ranges in RSMo 558.011, and fines follow RSMo 558.002.

Civil Options and Orders of Protection

Criminal charges are not the only remedy. Missouri victims have two strong civil tracks.

Orders of protection. Chapter 455 lets victims of stalking petition for an ex parte order of protection without waiting for criminal charges. A full order can prohibit all contact, communication, and surveillance, and violating it is itself a crime. Our Missouri restraining order laws guide covers the process step by step.

One statute in this chapter causes constant confusion. RSMo 455.095, most recently amended by HB 495 effective August 28, 2025, lets courts order GPS monitoring with victim notification for people who violate orders of protection. The system tracks the offender and alerts the protected person and local police when the offender approaches. It is a tool that protects victims from offenders. It says nothing about whether private citizens can track each other, so do not rely on it for either permission or prohibition.

Invasion of privacy lawsuits. Missouri courts recognize the tort of intrusion upon seclusion, which the Missouri Supreme Court discussed in Sofka v. Thal (1983). The court described the tort as an intentional intrusion upon another's seclusion or private affairs that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and held that publicity is not required. Sofka involved debt-collection phone calls, not location tracking, and the plaintiff lost because six to eight polite calls over several months did not meet that bar.

What to Do If You Find a Tracker on Your Car

1. Photograph it in place before touching it. Location, wiring, and mounting all matter as evidence.
2. Do not destroy it. The device, its serial number, and its account registration can identify who planted it.
3. Think before removing it. If you suspect an abusive partner, removal tells them you know. Contact a domestic violence advocate to safety plan first.
4. Report it to local police or the sheriff. Even without a tracking statute, the report documents one act in a potential stalking course of conduct.
5. Keep a log of incidents where someone seemed to know your location.
6. Consider an order of protection under chapter 455 if the tracking is part of following or harassment.

A mechanic or dealership can sweep the vehicle. Common hiding spots include the wheel wells, rear bumper cavity, under-seat area, and the OBD-II port under the dash.

Sources

• RSMo 565.225, Stalking, first degree (Missouri Revisor of Statutes)
• RSMo 565.227, Stalking, second degree, version in force through June 30, 2027 (Missouri Revisor of Statutes)
• RSMo 565.227, Stalking, second degree, version effective July 1, 2027 (Missouri Revisor of Statutes)
• SS#2 for SB 999 (2026), truly agreed to and finally passed text (Missouri Senate)
• Governor's action on SB 999, signed July 13, 2026 (Office of the Governor of Missouri)
• RSMo 565.002, Definitions, including course of conduct (Missouri Revisor of Statutes)
• RSMo 455.095, Electronic monitoring with victim notification (Missouri Revisor of Statutes)
• RSMo 575.205, Tampering with electronic monitoring equipment (Missouri Revisor of Statutes)
• 18 U.S.C. 2261A, Stalking (Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute)
• United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) (Supreme Court of the United States)
• Missouri HB 293 (2025), Unlawful tracking of a vehicle, bill summary (Missouri House of Representatives)
• Missouri HB 1911 (2026), Unlawful tracking of a motor vehicle, bill summary (Missouri House of Representatives)

For laws in other states, see our hub: GPS Tracking Laws by State.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws change, and how they apply depends on your specific situation. Consult a licensed Missouri attorney for advice about your circumstances.

More Missouri Laws

• Missouri Dashcam Laws
• Missouri Data Privacy Laws
• Missouri Drone Laws
• Missouri Employee Monitoring Laws
• Missouri Recording Laws
• Missouri Restraining Order Laws

Frequently Asked Questions

Is it illegal to put a GPS tracker on someone's car in Missouri?

Not as a single act. Missouri has no tracking device statute, so attaching a tracker to another person's car is not itself a crime. Through June 30, 2027, it becomes criminal stalking under RSMo 565.225 or 565.227 when it is part of a pattern of two or more acts that disturbs the victim. From July 1, 2027, the amended versions of those sections also reach technological abuse conduct, a defined term that names location tracking devices. Trespass and federal stalking charges can also apply.

Can I put a GPS tracker on my spouse's car in Missouri?

If the car is jointly titled, tracking it is generally lawful because you are an owner. If the car is titled only in your spouse's name, no Missouri statute forbids a single placement, but repeated covert monitoring can support a stalking charge, an order of protection, and an invasion of privacy lawsuit, and it rarely plays well in divorce court.

Did Missouri pass a GPS tracking law in 2025 or 2026?

Missouri did not create a standalone offense of unlawful tracking of a motor vehicle. HB 293 (2025) and HB 1911 (2026) would each have done that, and neither is in Missouri law. Missouri did enact SS#2 for SB 999 in 2026, signed by the governor on July 13, 2026, which repeals and re-enacts RSMo 565.002, 565.225 and 565.227 so the stalking statutes cover technological abuse conduct, including the use of location tracking devices. Those changes take effect July 1, 2027.

Can a private investigator legally use a GPS tracker in Missouri?

Missouri has no statute that either authorizes or prohibits PI tracking, so investigators operate in the same gap as everyone else. Careful investigators only place trackers on vehicles owned or co-owned by their client, because tracking a third party's car risks stalking allegations and civil liability.

Are AirTags treated differently than GPS trackers in Missouri?

No. Missouri law does not distinguish between Bluetooth item trackers and dedicated GPS units. The same stalking framework applies once tracking becomes a repeated course of conduct that disturbs the victim, and from July 1, 2027 the amended stalking statutes reach location tracking devices by name.

What is Missouri's RSMo 455.095 electronic monitoring law?

It lets courts order GPS monitoring with victim notification for people who violate orders of protection, tracking the offender and alerting the victim and police when the offender comes near. It regulates court-ordered offender monitoring only and has nothing to do with private citizens tracking each other.

Can police put a GPS tracker on my car without a warrant in Missouri?

In United States v. Jones (2012), the U.S. Supreme Court held that attaching a GPS device to a vehicle and using it to monitor movements is a Fourth Amendment search, which brings it under Fourth Amendment protection. The Court left open whether a warrant is required, because it treated the government's argument that the search was reasonable as forfeited.