Establishes the offense of unlawful tracking of a motor vehicle
HB 971 creates a new criminal offense in Missouri for unlawful tracking of a motor vehicle. A person would commit the offense if they knowingly install, conceal, or place an electronic tracking device in or on a vehicle without the consent of all owners, when the purpose is to monitor or follow an occupant of the vehicle. The bill expressly excludes the vehicle manufacturer from the definition of “person” for purposes of the offense.
The bill also lays out several exceptions where tracking would not be criminalized. These include tracking done by or at the direction of law enforcement in a criminal investigation, by a parent or legal guardian tracking their minor child in a vehicle they own or lease, to locate stolen goods or a stolen vehicle, by a legally authorized representative of a vulnerable adult, by someone who has consent from all vehicle owners, by rental/sharing/leasing companies managing their vehicles, by lienholders or their agents for repossession, and for voluntary usage-based insurance programs. The offense is classified as a class A misdemeanor for a first offense and a class E felony for second or subsequent offenses.
HB 971 would add section 565.260 to Missouri’s criminal code in Chapter 565, creating a new offense and penalties related to unauthorized vehicle tracking. It would affect individuals, employers, family members, insurers, rental and leasing companies, lienholders, law enforcement, and others who use GPS or similar tracking devices on vehicles. The bill also clarifies that manufacturer-installed tracking systems are outside the scope of the new offense, while preserving a range of lawful tracking uses tied to consent, public safety, child supervision, repossession, theft recovery, and telematics-based insurance.
The available voting history suggests strong support for the bill: the House advanced the HCS for HB 971, 293, and 978 on third reading by a unanimous 151-0 vote. No committee transcript excerpts were provided, so there is no recorded debate in the supplied materials. Overall, the bill appears to have been noncontroversial in the House at the stage reflected here, at least as to final passage from that chamber.
The main policy issue underlying the bill is balancing privacy and safety. Supporters would likely favor the measure as a protection against covert surveillance of vehicle occupants, while the detailed exceptions show an effort to avoid interfering with legitimate tracking uses. Potential points of contention include whether the consent requirement should apply to all owners, how broadly the exceptions for parents, vulnerable adults, insurers, and repossession agents should be read, and whether the criminal penalties are proportionate. The bill text itself suggests these concerns were addressed by carving out multiple exemptions rather than leaving the offense broad.