An accusation about tracking another person’s movements requires a close look at the particular device and how it was used. California Penal Code section 637.7 addresses electronic tracking through a device attached to a vehicle or another movable thing. It also contains specific exceptions, including one involving consent from a vehicle’s registered owner, lessor or lessee. Neither the label “GPS” nor a personal relationship answers those questions by itself.

If an investigator has contacted you, preserve the communication and any actual notice or complaint. Counsel can identify whether the allegation concerns section 637.7, another offense, or several separate claims before you give a detailed response.

What device and use does the statute describe?

Subdivision (a) prohibits using an electronic tracking device to determine a person’s location or movement. Subdivision (d) defines the device through physical attachment and transmitted electronic signals. Its phrase “device attached to a vehicle or other movable thing” matters: the section is not a definition of every location-related phone feature, audio recording or account record.

Have counsel compare the actual allegation with these separate facts:

Record or factual question What it helps clarify
The identified device and the vehicle or object involved Whether the alleged equipment fits the statute’s attachment-based definition.
What location information was transmitted or used Whether the accusation concerns determining a person’s location or movement through that device.
Who used the device and when Whether the evidence connects the accused person to the alleged conduct, rather than merely to a purchased item or shared account.
The complaint and supporting investigation record Which act and statutory provision are actually alleged; a suspicious-device report alone does not supply the filed count.

Keep existing purchase, account and message records without changing them. Do not activate a device, continue monitoring someone, erase records or contact a reporting person to test a theory about the case. Ask counsel how relevant physical and digital evidence should be preserved and reviewed.

Subdivision (b) exempts use with respect to a vehicle when its registered owner, lessor or lessee has consented. The exact vehicle relationship and the actual consent therefore deserve separate attention. Bring registration or lease documents and the communications that allegedly granted, limited or disputed permission. A recollection that “someone said it was fine” leaves important facts unresolved.

That vehicle provision should not be expanded into a general permission rule for every movable object. It also does not resolve a different criminal charge or a court order restricting contact. If several people claim an interest in the vehicle, or consent is disputed, counsel needs the actual documents and timeline rather than an assumption based on who usually drove it.

Subdivision (c) separately exempts lawful use by a law enforcement agency. An agency’s involvement and the lawfulness of its conduct are different questions. A private person’s cooperation with an investigation does not, by itself, establish that this exception applies.

Identify the consequences and any separate allegation

Section 637.7(e) classifies a violation as a misdemeanor. Subdivision (f) also makes a violation grounds for revocation of specified licenses issued under Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code, through the applicable licensing provisions. That is not a statement that every worker automatically loses a license upon an accusation.

For the separate issues mentioned here, see the firm’s guides to stalking allegations and restraining orders.

Stalking, a protective-order allegation, unlawful recording and a physical-tracker allegation raise different legal questions. Do not assume that disproving one resolves the others, or that the absence of a stalking count authorizes tracking. Counsel should compare each actual charge and any current order independently.

For a California criminal allegation involving a tracking device, the Law Offices of David S. Chesley can discuss the device evidence, vehicle documents and alleged permission with you. Bring any investigator contact, complaint, hearing notice and existing court orders. Contact the firm or call (800) 755-5174.