Establishes the offense of unlawful tracking of a motor vehicle
HB978 creates a new criminal offense in Missouri for unlawfully tracking a motor vehicle. The bill makes it illegal for a person to 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 or occupants of the vehicle. The measure expressly excludes vehicle manufacturers from the definition of “person” for purposes of the offense.
The bill also lists several exceptions where the conduct would not be criminal, including tracking done by or at the direction of law enforcement during a lawful criminal investigation, by a parent or legal guardian tracking a minor child in a vehicle they own or lease, to locate stolen goods or a stolen vehicle, by a lienholder or its agent for repossession purposes, by a legally authorized representative of a vulnerable adult, by vehicle rental/sharing/leasing companies for fleet management or customer service, and by private investigators who obtain consent from all owners or lessees. A violation is classified as a Class B misdemeanor.
HB978 would add section 565.260 to Missouri’s criminal code in chapter 565, expanding state law to specifically address covert vehicle tracking and privacy-related surveillance. It would create a new misdemeanor offense and define the scope of lawful and unlawful use of electronic tracking devices in motor vehicles, while preserving existing practices for law enforcement, family monitoring, repossession, fleet management, and manufacturer-installed systems. The bill would affect vehicle owners, occupants, parents, guardians, lenders, private investigators, rental and leasing companies, and law enforcement agencies.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes, the available context suggests a generally protective, anti-surveillance purpose focused on privacy and consent. The bill appears designed to prevent stalking or unauthorized monitoring through hidden tracking devices while still allowing common and legally recognized uses. Because there are no transcripts or vote records provided, there is no documented support or opposition to gauge beyond the structure of the proposal itself.
The main points of potential contention are the privacy interests of vehicle occupants versus the practical and commercial uses of tracking technology. Questions could arise over the breadth of the consent requirement, especially in shared vehicles, family situations, and business contexts, as well as whether the exceptions are sufficiently narrow or broad. Law enforcement, lenders, rental companies, private investigators, and family members acting for minors or vulnerable adults are the groups most directly affected by these carve-outs, and they would likely be the stakeholders most concerned with how the law is applied.