Because privacy laws haven’t kept up with advances in technology, police have long claimed the authority to access this information from cell phone companies without warrants. While Congress and the Supreme Court haven’t yet weighed in on whether a warrant should be required for location information, little by little, state legislatures and lower courts are expanding privacy protections for more and more Americans.That does mean, however, that the status of your privacy protections depends on where you are. Tracking employees using their personally owned property is still a legal gray area. In Illinois, police need a warrant to know where you are right now, but not where you were last week. The regulatory authority required that all city cabs have the TTS equipment installed and drivers were required to use the system to transmit information regarding location, trip and fare information to the regulatory authority.The takeaway from these cases is that, although an employer appears to be on solid ground attaching a GPS device to a company-owned vehicle and using data gathered by the device in an investigation of workplace misconduct, especially where the employee is aware the device is on the vehicle and the information is only being gathered while the employee is on duty, caution should be taken in attaching a GPS device to a personal vehicle used by the employee for work purposes. There cases in which courts have addressed the legal parameters of an employer’s use of GPS devices to track workers in order to investigate potential misconduct are few but nonetheless instructive. In these two cases, even though the cabs were personally owned by the drivers, the court found that the cab drivers had limited privacy rights with respect to the vehicles because they were open to public use and subject to regulation by the state. In Elgin v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. (E.D.Mo. Click on any highlighted state for more information.No binding authority; location information unprotectedNo binding authority; location information unprotectedNo binding authority; location information unprotectedWarrant required for all cell phone location informationThird Circuit Court of Appeals, In re Application (2010): Magistrate judges have discretion to require warrant for historical CSLI, and third-party doctrine does not apply.No binding authority; location information unprotectedNo binding authority; location information unprotectedNo binding authority; location information unprotectedNo binding authority; location information unprotectedWarrant required for all cell phone location informationWarrant required for historical cell site location informationWarrant required for all cell phone location informationNo binding authority; location information unprotectedWarrant required for all cell phone location informationNo binding authority; location information unprotectedWarrant required for all cell phone location informationThird Circuit Court of Appeals, In re Application (2010): Magistrate judges have discretion to require warrant for historical CSLI, and third-party doctrine does not apply.No binding authority; location information unprotectedNo binding authority; location information unprotectedNo binding authority; location information unprotectedNo binding authority; location information unprotectedNo binding authority; location information unprotectedThird Circuit Court of Appeals, In re Application (2010): Magistrate judges have discretion to require warrant for historical CSLI, and third-party doctrine does not apply.Warrant required for all cell phone location informationNo binding authority; location information unprotectedFifth Circuit Court of Appeals, In re Application (2013): No warrant required for historical CSLI.Warrant required for all cell phone location informationWarrant required for all cell phone location informationNo binding authority; location information unprotectedNo binding authority; location information unprotectedNo binding authority; location information unprotected

The case law and statutes show that generally, tracking an employee using company-owned property is permissible, especially when the employee is aware of the GPS monitoring. This service enables you to track mobile number locations and real-time device positions without notifying the phone owner. In California, your location information is protected against warrantless search by state and local police, but not by federal authorities. In all likelihood, the employee in these situations is aware that a GPS device has been installed on the company vehicle he or she is driving and that the employee’s movements are being tracked while on duty. Our mission is two-fold: to provide critical, real-time updates on employment law matters to in-house counsel and HR executives, and to keep our audience apprised of new trends and developments on the horizon. Since then, we've used CTT transmitters on more than 75 snowy owls in 14 states and provinces.