H.223 would update Vermont’s stalking and domestic violence laws to address modern tracking tools and connected vehicle services. It expands the definition of “course of conduct” for stalking to include unauthorized electronic, digital, or GPS surveillance of a person or their internet or wireless activity, and it makes clear that using tracking technology to follow someone without consent can qualify as stalking. The bill also creates a new criminal offense for knowingly installing or using an electronic tracking device in or on a motor vehicle without the consent of the operator and all occupants, when done to monitor or follow them, subject to several exceptions.
The bill further adds protections for domestic violence survivors in civil relief-from-abuse cases. A plaintiff could request temporary possession of a vehicle if needed to escape abuse or future abuse and if they have ownership, loan responsibility, possession, or have been blocked from using the vehicle. In addition, the bill establishes a process for survivors to terminate or disable an abuser’s access to connected vehicle services, including location tracking and remote vehicle access, even when the abuser is the account holder. Covered providers would have to create a visible online process, respond quickly, protect privacy, and help survivors reestablish access under their own control.
The bill’s impact on state law would be significant in both criminal and family-law contexts. It amends the stalking statute in Title 13, adds a new motor-vehicle tracking offense with penalties of up to one year in jail and/or a $1,000 fine, and adds new provisions in Title 15 governing vehicle possession in abuse-prevention proceedings and the handling of connected vehicle services. It also sets out exceptions for law enforcement, parents/guardians monitoring minor children, vehicle theft recovery, dealers with consent, business fleet tracking, manufacturer-installed systems, rental vehicles, and insurance-related telematics.
Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes in the provided material, there is no documented legislative debate or formal vote history to gauge sentiment. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears strongly protective of stalking and domestic violence survivors, with a clear emphasis on closing technology-based loopholes that can be used for surveillance or coercive control. The overall tone is victim-centered and preventive rather than punitive.
The main points of potential contention are likely to involve privacy, enforcement, and the scope of the exceptions. Questions may arise about how to distinguish unlawful tracking from legitimate uses such as parental monitoring, fleet management, insurance telematics, and manufacturer or dealer-installed systems. The connected-vehicle provisions could also raise operational concerns for manufacturers and service providers about technical feasibility, account access, data handling, and liability, while survivors’ advocates would likely focus on ensuring the process is fast, accessible, and effective in emergencies.
H.223 would amend Vermont’s criminal stalking definitions in 13 V.S.A. § 1061, add a new offense in 13 V.S.A. § 1065 for unauthorized electronic tracking of motor vehicles, and create new domestic-violence-related vehicle and connected-services protections in Title 15. It would give courts authority to award temporary possession of a vehicle in relief-from-abuse cases and would require covered vehicle-service providers to terminate an abuser’s access to connected vehicle location services upon a qualifying survivor request, subject to proof requirements, privacy rules, and technical-feasibility limits. The bill would also impose criminal penalties for prohibited vehicle tracking and establish multiple statutory exceptions for law enforcement and other legitimate uses.
No committee testimony or votes were provided, so there is no recorded public sentiment in the supplied materials. The bill’s structure and findings indicate a generally supportive, survivor-protection-oriented approach, aimed at addressing stalking, coercive control, and digital surveillance through vehicles and connected services. The absence of recorded opposition in the materials does not mean there would be none in practice, but the text itself reflects a strong policy preference for expanding protections for victims of abuse.
Likely areas of contention include the breadth of the new stalking definition, the criminalization of vehicle tracking, and the administrative burden placed on connected-vehicle providers. Privacy and due-process concerns may arise around allowing survivors to disable an account holder’s access based on court orders, police affidavits, or advocate statements, as well as around the handling of personal information. Businesses, insurers, dealers, and manufacturers may also scrutinize the exceptions and the technical-feasibility carveout, while advocates for survivors are likely to press for rapid, low-barrier access to vehicle control and location privacy.