(a)No person or entity in this state shall use an electronic tracking device to determine the location or movement of a person.
(b)This section shall 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.
(c)This section shall not apply to the lawful use of an electronic tracking device by a law enforcement agency.
(d)As used in this section, “electronic tracking device” means any device attached to a vehicle or other movable thing that reveals its location or movement by the transmission of electronic signals.
(e)A violation of this section is a misdemeanor.
(f)A violation of this section by a person, business, firm, company, association, partnership, or corporation licensed under Division 3 (commencing with Section 5000) of the Business and Professions Code shall constitute grounds for revocation of the license issued to that person, business, firm, company, association, partnership, or corporation, pursuant to the provisions that provide for the revocation of the license as set forth in Division 3 (commencing with Section 5000) of the Business and Professions Code.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
18
cases (
6 in the last 5 years), 2010–2025 · leading case:
United States v. Maynard, 615 F.3d 544 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
United States v. Maynard, 615 F.3d 544 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
“unlawful for anyone but a law enforcement agency to “use an electronic tracking device to determine the location or movement of a person,” specifically declared “electronic tracking of a person’s location without that person’s knowledge violates that person’s reasonable…”
Commonwealth v. Brennan, 112 N.E.3d 1180 (Mass. 2018).
“, Cal. Penal Code § 637.7 (prohibits person or entity from using electronic tracking device to determine location or movement of person); Fla.”
The People v. Barnes, 216 Cal. App. 4th 1508 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013).
“” (Pen. Code, § 637.7, subds. (a), (b).) It further provides that “This section shall not apply to the lawful use of an electronic tracking device by a law enforcement agency.”
State v. Holden, 54 A.3d 1123 (Del. Super. Ct. 2010).
“C.S. § 5761 subsection (c) requires a written application for the use of a mobile tracking device, *1132 and an order by the court of common pleas authorizing its use, before such device may lawfully be installed or used.”
State v. White, 2013 Ohio 5221 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
“unlawful for anyone but a law enforcement agency to 'use an electronic tracking device to determine the location or movement of a person,' specifically declared 'electronic tracking of a person's location without that person's knowledge violates that person's reasonable…”
State v. Sullivan, 2013 Ohio 5276 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
“unlawful for anyone but a law enforcement agency to 'use an electronic tracking device to determine the location or movement of a person,' specifically declared 'electronic tracking of a person's location without that person's knowledge violates that person's reasonable…”
Shapiro v. Fin. Servs. Veh. Trust CA2/1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 3× “DISCUSSION Shapiro contends summary judgment was improper because triable issues exist as to (1) whether BMW illegally tracked the 2012 BMW and (2) whether he consented to activate the BMW Assist tracking software. We disagree.”
Simmons v. Bauer Media Grp. USA, LLC (Cal. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 2× “The first amended complaint alleges Mathews is personally liable and Bauer is vicariously liable for (1) violating Penal Code section 637.7, pursuant to a private right of action under Penal Code section 637.”
In re: Google Location History Litig. (N.D. Cal. 2019).
· cites it 2× “California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”) Claim 26 California Penal Code § 637.7 provides in relevant part: 27 (a) No person or entity in this state shall use an electronic tracking device to determine the 1 location or movement of a person.”
Saman Mollaei v. Otonomo Inc. (9th Cir. 2025).
· cites it 2× “Mollaei claims that the data allows Otonomo and its paying clients to pinpoint the location and movement of every connected car and driver without the driver’s consent, which violates California Penal Code § 637.7. Otonomo moved to dismiss Mollaei’s complaint for failure to…”
People v. Slaieh CA4/1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 2× “9), unlawfully using an electronic tracking device to determine location or movement of a person (Pen. Code, § 637.7), annoying or harassing telephone calls or electronic communication (Pen.”
— Cal. Penal Code § 637.7(a) — 2 cases
Saman Mollaei v. Otonomo Inc. (9th Cir. 2025).
“Mollaei claims that the data allows Otonomo and its paying clients to pinpoint the location and movement of every connected car and driver without the driver’s consent, which violates California Penal Code § 637.7. Otonomo moved to dismiss Mollaei’s complaint for failure to…”
— Cal. Penal Code § 637.7(c) — 1 case
State v. Holden, 54 A.3d 1123 (Del. Super. Ct. 2010).
“C.S. § 5761 subsection (c) requires a written application for the use of a mobile tracking device, *1132 and an order by the court of common pleas authorizing its use, before such device may lawfully be installed or used.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.