2.2 Electronic Tracking Devices & GPS Surveillance (Penal Code § 637.7)
Key Takeaways
- California Penal Code § 637.7 makes it a criminal misdemeanor to attach an electronic tracking device (such as a GPS tracker) to movable property or a vehicle without consent.
- Licensed private investigators enjoy NO statutory exemption under PC § 637.7; placing a tracker without proper consent violates California criminal law and triggers BSIS disciplinary action.
- Consent to attach an electronic tracking device must be granted specifically by the registered owner, lessor, or lessee of the vehicle as documented by the California DMV.
- Marital or community property status alone does not authorize one spouse to place or permit a GPS tracker on a vehicle solely registered to the other spouse.
- Unlike the Fourth Amendment (United States v. Jones), which limits government trespass, PC § 637.7 directly governs and penalizes private citizens and private investigators.
Electronic Tracking Devices & GPS Surveillance (Penal Code § 637.7)
Quick Summary: In California, the use of Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking pucks and electronic tracking devices on motor vehicles is governed by California Penal Code § 637.7. California law strictly prohibits attaching any electronic tracking device to movable property without the consent of the registered owner, lessor, or lessee. Licensed private investigators have zero special exemption under this statute.
The Statutory Prohibition: Penal Code § 637.7
Enacted to curb intrusive surveillance and stalking, California Penal Code § 637.7 establishes clear statutory boundaries for electronic location tracking:
- PC § 637.7(a): "No person or entity in this state shall use an electronic tracking device to determine the location or movement of a person."
- PC § 637.7(b): Defines an electronic tracking device as "any device attached to a vehicle or other movable thing that reveals its location or movement by the transmission of electronic signals."
- PC § 637.7(c): Provides the sole statutory exception: Subsection (a) does not apply when the registered owner, lessor, or lessee of a vehicle has consented to the use of the electronic tracking device with respect to that vehicle.
- PC § 637.7(d): Designates any violation as a criminal misdemeanor.
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ PENAL CODE § 637.7 REQUIREMENTS │
├────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Target Property: Any motor vehicle, trailer, boat, or movable object │
│ Prohibited Act: Attaching / placing GPS tracker or tracking beacon │
│ Sole Exception: Affirmative consent of REGISTERED OWNER or LESSEE │
│ PI Exemption: NONE (Licensed PIs are fully subject to PC § 637.7) │
│ Penalty: Criminal Misdemeanor + BSIS License Suspension │
└────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Absence of a Private Investigator Exemption
A persistent misconception among clients and novice investigators is that a BSIS Private Investigator license grants legal authority to place GPS trackers on target vehicles during surveillance operations.
California law provides no such privilege:
- No Police Powers: Private investigators are private citizens under California law (see Chapter 3) and possess no sovereign law enforcement authority.
- Strict Liability for PIs: If a licensed PI attaches a magnetic GPS device under the bumper of a suspect's vehicle without the registered owner's consent, the investigator commits a misdemeanor under PC § 637.7.
- Administrative Discipline: Under Business and Professions Code § 7561.1, violating PC § 637.7 constitutes grounds for the Bureau of Security and Investigative Services (BSIS) to revoke or suspend the PI license and fine the Qualified Manager.
Registered Owner Consent & Marital Property Nuances
The statutory safe harbor under PC § 637.7(c) requires the affirmative consent of the registered owner, lessor, or lessee.
In domestic and marital investigations (infidelity, child custody, divorce asset searches), determining who holds legal authority to consent is a critical exam topic:
1. Sole Registered Ownership by Target Spouse
If Spouse A hires a private investigator to track Spouse B, but the vehicle is registered solely in Spouse B's name (or leased solely by Spouse B):
- Spouse A CANNOT legally consent to the placement of a GPS device.
- Even though California is a community property state where the vehicle may be a marital asset, PC § 637.7 specifically conditions legality on registered title ownership, not family law equity.
- Placing a GPS device under these circumstances constitutes a misdemeanor by both the investigator and the client (as an aider and abettor).
2. Co-Registered Ownership (Both Spouses on DMV Title)
If both Spouse A and Spouse B are listed on the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) registration certificate as co-owners:
- Spouse A is a registered owner and may legally consent to placing a tracking device on the vehicle under PC § 637.7(c).
- Crucial Limitation — Restraining Orders: If a Family Court has issued a Domestic Violence Restraining Order (DVRO), temporary restraining order (TRO), or protective order prohibiting Spouse A from tracking, contacting, or surveilling Spouse B, installing a GPS tracker (or directing a PI to do so) constitutes criminal stalking under Penal Code § 646.9 and a violation of court orders under Penal Code § 273.6, nullifying any ownership defense.
3. Commercial Fleet & Employer-Owned Vehicles
An employer or corporate entity that is the registered owner or lessee of fleet vehicles may consent to installing GPS tracking units on company-owned vehicles to monitor employee routing, safety, and asset utilization. However, California Labor Code and constitutional privacy principles require employers to provide clear prior notice to employees regarding tracking devices on vehicles they operate.
Comparison: Statutory PC § 637.7 vs. Fourth Amendment (United States v. Jones)
Candidates must distinguish between federal constitutional Fourth Amendment jurisprudence and California state statutory law:
| Legal Standard | Application Scope | Core Ruling / Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Fourth Amendment<br>(United States v. Jones, 2012) | Government / Law Enforcement Only | Attaching a GPS tracking device to a vehicle constitutes a physical trespass upon an "effect" under the 4th Amendment, requiring a valid search warrant based on probable cause. |
| California Penal Code § 637.7 | Private Citizens & Private Investigators | Statutorily prohibits any private individual or entity from attaching a tracking device without registered owner/lessee consent, regardless of public street location. |
A client suspects her husband of having an affair and wants to place a GPS tracker on his car. The car is registered solely in the husband's name with the California DMV, though purchased with joint community funds during marriage. Can a licensed private investigator legally install the GPS tracker?
Which of the following entities has a statutory exemption that allows the nonconsensual attachment of a GPS tracking device without registered owner consent under California Penal Code § 637.7?
In United States v. Jones (2012), the U.S. Supreme Court addressed GPS tracking. How does the Jones decision differ in application from California Penal Code § 637.7?