The answer to this question is: it depends on the circumstances. GPS tracking and privacy rights are still an emerging area of case law.

In some cases, GPS tracking has been challenged as a violation of the individual’s Fourth Amendment Rights against search and seizure. However, according to Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, GPS tracking isn’t generally an issue when employees are driving company-owned cars. There are even instances when an employer can attach a GPS to an employee-owned car and tracking isn’t an issue.

The New York Supreme Court ruled on a case in 2011 where a public employee had received discipline over a previous period of 10 years for workplace misconduct. When the employer suspected the employee of a pattern of unauthorized absences from work and falsifying time records, the employer hired an investigator to tail the worker. Tailing failed because the employee realized he was being followed. Consequently, the employer placed a GPS tracking device on the employee’s car. A Civil Service Law Hearing found there was sufficient evidence to prove falsified time records without the GPS evidence. The Supreme Court ruled that in a criminal investigation, probable cause and a warrant was required but not in an administrative hearing. The search in this case was reasonable based on the circumstances of the employee’s prior disciplinary record and the fact that other private investigation methods had failed.

More stringent standards are necessary in a criminal case based on the U.S. Constitution and NY Constitution, which offer protections against illegal search and seizure in criminal prosecution.

If you’re considering placing a GPS tracking device on an employee’s car, you are wise to first consult with an experienced employment lawyer before doing so. Situations vary, and getting a legal opinion can protect your rights, and especially in a legal area where court rulings vary.

At Stephen Hans & Associates, we have decades of legal experience protecting business owners’ rights and litigating employment law cases.