Yes. Hiding an AirTag in someone’s car can lead to criminal charges in Tennessee. Under Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-606, knowingly placing an electronic tracking device in or on a motor vehicle without all owners’ consent for the purpose of monitoring or following an occupant is a Class A misdemeanor, unless a statutory exception applies.
Depending on the circumstances, separate stalking charges may also be possible under Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-315.
An Apple AirTag is small enough to be placed beneath a seat, inside a glove compartment, or elsewhere in a vehicle without the driver’s knowledge. Although designed to help people locate belongings, these devices can also be used to monitor someone’s location.
The legal question is not simply whether an AirTag was discovered. Investigators must consider who placed it, who owned or leased the vehicle, whether the required consent existed, and why the device was installed.
When these allegations arise between spouses, former partners, or people in a domestic relationship, the circumstances may also involve issues relevant to domestic violence defense in Tennessee.
Is It Illegal to Put an AirTag on Someone’s Car in Tennessee?
Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-13-606 addresses the unauthorized electronic tracking of motor vehicles.
Under subsection (a)(1)(A), prosecutors must establish that the accused:
- Knowingly installed, concealed, or otherwise placed an electronic tracking device in or on a motor vehicle.
- Did so without the consent of all vehicle owners.
- Placed the device for the purpose of monitoring or following an occupant or occupants of the vehicle.
These requirements matter because the mere discovery of an AirTag does not establish every element of the offense.
For example, consider someone who secretly places a tracking device beneath another person’s car to monitor where that person drives.
If investigators can establish that the accused knowingly placed a qualifying device, lacked the required owner consent, and acted for the prohibited purpose, the evidence may support a criminal charge.
The statute does not require the device to remain attached for several days or weeks. Nor does it require the prosecution to establish that the accused successfully followed the vehicle to multiple locations.
The conduct and purpose identified in the statute are central to the charge.
Does Tennessee’s Vehicle Tracking Law Cover Apple AirTags?
Tennessee’s vehicle-tracking statute uses the term “electronic tracking device.” It does not specifically identify Apple AirTags or restrict its language to conventional GPS tracking equipment.
An AirTag works differently from a traditional GPS tracker. It uses Bluetooth technology and Apple’s Find My network to help determine its location, rather than relying on its own GPS receiver and cellular connection.
Nevertheless, the device can be used to monitor the location of a vehicle.
Because § 39-13-606 refers broadly to electronic tracking devices, prosecutors may argue that an AirTag placed in a vehicle for unauthorized monitoring falls within the statute.
Whether a particular device satisfies the statutory language, and whether the other required elements are proven, would depend on the applicable law and evidence.
An important distinction is that Tennessee’s law does not make possession of an AirTag itself a crime.
A device placed with the required consent for a legitimate purpose presents a different situation from one secretly installed to monitor someone’s movements.
Whose Consent Is Required to Place a Tracker in a Car?
Under § 39-13-606(a)(1)(A), consent must come from all owners of the vehicle.
This is particularly important when the vehicle is jointly owned, financed, or used by someone other than its owner.
What if the vehicle is jointly owned?
Joint ownership does not automatically authorize one owner to install a tracking device without the other’s consent.
Consider a hypothetical situation involving a married couple who jointly own a vehicle.
One spouse suspects the other is being dishonest about where they travel. Without discussing it, the first spouse places an AirTag inside the vehicle to monitor its movements.
Even though the person placing the device has an ownership interest, that fact alone does not resolve the legal issue.
Tennessee law requires consent from all owners under subsection (a)(1)(A). If one owner did not consent, and the remaining statutory elements are established, the placement may support a criminal charge.
The statute does not provide a blanket exception for spouses, former spouses, or people involved in a divorce.
What if the vehicle was purchased with a loan?
Tennessee law expressly includes someone who purchased a vehicle using a loan within its definition of an owner.
A person does not lose ownership status under this provision simply because the vehicle has not been paid off.
Vehicle records, financing documents, and the circumstances of the purchase may help establish who qualifies as an owner.
What if the driver does not own the vehicle?
The consent requirement in § 39-13-606(a)(1)(A) concerns the vehicle’s owners, not simply whoever happens to be driving.
If the person placing a tracker is the sole owner, that creates a different legal question from placing a device in a jointly owned vehicle or another person’s car.
However, ownership does not automatically eliminate the possibility of a separate stalking allegation.
Tennessee’s stalking statute contains its own provisions involving electronic tracking devices placed without a person’s consent. Those requirements must be analyzed independently.
What about leased vehicles?
Tennessee law contains a separate provision specifically addressing tracking devices in leased vehicles.
Under § 39-13-606(a)(1)(B), a person who leases a motor vehicle to another person commits an offense by knowingly installing, concealing, or otherwise placing an electronic tracking device in or on the vehicle without the lessee’s consent.
This provision is distinct from subsection (a)(1)(A).
The leased-vehicle provision does not expressly repeat the requirement that the device be placed for the purpose of monitoring or following an occupant.
For that reason, determining which subsection applies is important. The particular leasing arrangement, the identity of the lessee, and evidence of consent may affect the legal analysis.
What Exceptions Does Tennessee’s Vehicle Tracking Law Allow?
Not every installation of an electronic tracking device violates § 39-13-606.
Tennessee law identifies specific circumstances in which the statute does not prohibit placement.
Law enforcement investigations. A tracking device may be installed or placed by, or at the direction of, a law enforcement officer in furtherance of a criminal investigation when the conduct complies with applicable state and federal law.
Parents or legal guardians monitoring minor children. A parent or legal guardian who owns or leases a vehicle may place a tracking device in or on that vehicle solely to monitor their minor child while the child is an occupant. The exception is limited to the conditions stated in the statute and does not establish unrestricted permission to track other people.
Stolen vehicles or stolen property. The law permits placement of a device for the purpose of locating a stolen vehicle or stolen goods being transported inside a vehicle.
Manufacturer-installed tracking systems. Section 39-13-606 does not apply to tracking systems installed by the vehicle manufacturer.
These exceptions should not be interpreted more broadly than their statutory language permits.
For example, suspecting that a spouse is being unfaithful or that a former partner is visiting an unfamiliar address is not itself a statutory exception.
The Tennessee General Assembly’s 2016 legislative proceedings concerning HB 2095 document the amendment addressing consent in leased vehicles.
What Are the Criminal Penalties for Unauthorized Vehicle Tracking?
Violating Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-606 is a Class A misdemeanor.
Under Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-111(e)(1), the authorized penalties for a Class A misdemeanor include:
- Up to 11 months and 29 days in jail.
- A fine of up to $2,500.
- Both imprisonment and a fine.
These are the maximum penalties authorized by the misdemeanor classification, not mandatory sentences imposed in every case.
A conviction can also create a criminal record.
The classification does not automatically become a felony merely because a tracking device was hidden or used more than once. However, additional conduct may support separate criminal charges, including stalking, when the elements of another offense are established.
Can One AirTag Lead to a Stalking Charge in Tennessee?
Yes. A single unauthorized placement of an electronic tracking device can satisfy a specific part of Tennessee’s stalking statute, but it does not automatically establish the entire offense.
In 2023, Tennessee amended Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-315(a)(1) to address electronic tracking devices.
Before explaining the significance of that amendment, it is important to understand the distinction between vehicle tracking and stalking.
| Legal issue | Unauthorized vehicle tracking | Stalking |
|---|---|---|
| Statute | § 39-13-606 | § 39-17-315 |
| Main focus | Placing a tracker in or on a vehicle | Stalking conduct and its effects on a person |
| Consent | All vehicle owners under subsection (a)(1)(A), with a separate leased-vehicle provision | Consent is relevant to the electronic-tracking course-of-conduct provision |
| Basic classification | Class A misdemeanor | Class A misdemeanor, subject to statutory felony provisions |
| Does finding an AirTag automatically prove the offense? | No | No |
Why does one tracker placement matter under the stalking law?
Tennessee’s stalking statute defines a course of conduct to include a pattern involving two or more separate, noncontinuous acts showing a continuity of purpose.
However, subsection (a)(1)(B) expressly includes one instance of placing an electronic tracking device without a person’s consent on that person or in or on that person’s property.
This means the single placement can satisfy the statutory definition of a course of conduct.
It does not eliminate the remaining stalking requirements.
Prosecutors must still establish the necessary harassment, mental state, and effects on the alleged victim.
Under § 39-17-315, harassment includes conduct directed toward a victim, committed with reckless disregard for whether the victim will experience emotional distress, when the victim does experience that distress. The statutory definition also excludes constitutionally protected activity and conduct serving a legitimate purpose.
The stalking definition separately requires a willful course of conduct involving repeated or continuing harassment that would cause a reasonable person to experience specified reactions, such as fear or intimidation, and that actually causes the alleged victim to experience a qualifying reaction.
Whether those requirements are satisfied must be evaluated from the evidence.
The Tennessee General Assembly’s 2023 HB 1008 legislation contains the language addressing a single electronic tracking device placement.
When can stalking become a felony?
Basic stalking is a Class A misdemeanor, although § 39-17-315 also establishes a Class E felony classification for stalking committed by certain persons required to register, or registered, as sexual offenders.
Aggravated stalking is a Class E felony when the required stalking elements are accompanied by specified circumstances.
Those circumstances include certain prior stalking convictions, qualifying threats, displaying a deadly weapon during and in furtherance of stalking, specified age-related circumstances, or knowingly violating a qualifying court order prohibiting contact.
Especially aggravated stalking is a Class C felony when its additional statutory requirements are established. These include certain prior stalking convictions involving the same victim, serious bodily injury in specified circumstances, or stalking a child younger than 12 when the accused is at least 18.
Placing an AirTag in someone’s car does not automatically establish any of those felony offenses.
Can both vehicle tracking and stalking be charged?
Potentially.
Section 39-13-606 and § 39-17-315 establish different criminal offenses with different elements.
Tennessee’s stalking statute expressly states that it does not prohibit prosecution and conviction under another criminal statute.
Depending on the circumstances, prosecutors may consider charges under both statutes.
Whether separate charges or convictions are legally sustainable depends on the evidence, the elements of the offenses, and applicable law.
What Evidence Matters in an AirTag Tracking Case?
Finding an AirTag in someone’s vehicle may prompt a criminal investigation, but the physical device is only one piece of potential evidence.
A central question is whether investigators can reliably connect the accused to the placement and establish the elements of the alleged offense.
Device ownership and account information
Investigators may examine available purchase records, device identifiers, and information concerning the account associated with the AirTag.
This information may help identify someone connected to the device.
However, owning or registering an AirTag is not necessarily the same as physically placing it in a vehicle.
The evidence must be evaluated to determine what it establishes.
Vehicle ownership and consent
Registration records, purchase documents, leasing agreements, and communications between the parties may help establish who owned or leased the vehicle and whether the required consent existed.
In jointly owned vehicles, this issue can be particularly important.
Text messages and other communications
Messages may be relevant to the accused’s purpose, knowledge, or an agreement concerning use of a tracking device.
For example, a message discussing the installation of a tracker may support a different interpretation from an accusation that the device was installed secretly.
Davis & Hoss has previously addressed the evidentiary importance of electronic communications in its article on text message evidence in criminal defense cases.
Evidence of physical placement
Witness statements, surveillance footage, access to the vehicle, or other evidence may help establish who actually installed the device.
The location where an AirTag was discovered may also be relevant, but its presence does not independently identify the person responsible.
Evidence relating to intent and stalking allegations
Under § 39-13-606(a)(1)(A), prosecutors must establish the prohibited monitoring or following purpose.
For a stalking charge, evidence concerning the alleged harassment, mental state, and effect on the alleged victim may also become important.
These are distinct questions. Evidence supporting one element of unauthorized vehicle tracking does not automatically establish every element of stalking.
What Should You Do If You Are Accused of Unauthorized AirTag Tracking?
An accusation involving an AirTag can raise questions about vehicle ownership, personal relationships, consent, and digital evidence.
If you discover that law enforcement is investigating you for unauthorized vehicle tracking, taking the following precautions may help protect relevant evidence and legal rights.
Preserve relevant information. Avoid deleting messages, account records, photographs, or documents concerning the device or vehicle. Information that initially appears unfavorable may also be relevant to consent, ownership, or attribution.
Gather ownership and leasing documents. Records showing who owned or leased the vehicle may help clarify the consent requirements applicable to the allegation.
Avoid unwanted contact. Do not attempt to resolve an accusation through repeated or unwanted contact with the person involved. Any applicable protective order or court-imposed restriction must be respected.
Obtain legal advice before discussing the allegations in detail with investigators. A criminal defense lawyer can help assess the precise allegations and the legal consequences of making statements.
How a case is handled can depend on the specific charge and local court procedures.
Frequently Asked Questions About AirTag Tracking Laws in Tennessee
Can I put an AirTag in a car that I jointly own?
Joint ownership does not automatically eliminate the consent requirement. Under Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-606(a)(1)(A), all vehicle owners must consent. Whether the placement constitutes an offense also depends on the other statutory elements and any applicable exception.
Is secretly tracking your spouse’s car illegal in Tennessee?
It can be. Tennessee’s vehicle-tracking statute does not provide a blanket exception for married couples. Vehicle ownership, the required consent, and the purpose of the device must be examined. Separate stalking provisions may also become relevant.
Can one AirTag result in a stalking charge?
Yes, if the remaining stalking elements can be established. Tennessee law provides that one unauthorized electronic tracking device placement on a person or in or on that person’s property can satisfy the course-of-conduct definition. It does not automatically establish stalking.
Can someone go to jail for putting an AirTag on another person’s vehicle?
Yes. A conviction under Tennessee’s unauthorized vehicle-tracking statute is a Class A misdemeanor, with an authorized maximum jail sentence of 11 months and 29 days. A fine of up to $2,500 may also be imposed. The applicable sentence depends on the case and Tennessee sentencing law.
Facing AirTag Tracking or Stalking Charges in Tennessee?
A small tracking device can become the focus of a criminal investigation involving vehicle ownership, consent, electronic evidence, and allegations about a person’s movements.
Whether the device was placed in a jointly owned car, a leased vehicle, or a vehicle belonging to someone else, Tennessee law requires careful attention to the applicable statutory elements.
Davis & Hoss represents clients facing criminal allegations in Tennessee communities.
If you have been accused of unlawfully tracking a vehicle or are under investigation for stalking involving an electronic tracking device, contact Davis & Hoss to discuss the allegations, your legal rights, and possible defense options.