Previous consent can provide an important defense to a Florida tracking-device accusation, but permission can be withdrawn, limited, or presumed revoked under Florida Statute § 934.425.

Many tracking-device cases do not begin with a device secretly placed by a stranger. They begin between people who once willingly shared their locations. Spouses may use family-location applications, parents may track children, couples may share phone locations, businesses may monitor company vehicles, and friends may use tracking technology while traveling. Problems arise when the relationship changes and one person claims that previously authorized tracking continued after permission ended. Florida Statute § 934.425 makes consent a central part of the criminal offense, but the statute also establishes circumstances in which prior consent is presumed revoked. As a Florida criminal defense attorney, I would not simply ask whether permission ever existed. I would determine exactly what permission was given, what technology it covered, whether it had limits, whether it was expressly withdrawn, whether Florida law presumed it revoked, and whether the State can prove tracking occurred after that point.

Why Does Consent Matter According To A Florida Criminal Defense Attorney?

Florida Statute § 934.425 generally prohibits knowingly installing or placing a tracking device or application on another person's property without that person's consent. The statute likewise prohibits knowingly using tracking technology to determine another person's location or movement, or the location or movement of another person's property, without consent.

Consent is therefore not a minor factual detail. It goes directly to the conduct prohibited by the statute.

If I can establish that the person authorized the installation or use during the period identified by prosecutors, that evidence can substantially undermine the criminal charge.

The issue becomes more complicated when permission existed initially but allegedly ended later. The defense then needs a timeline, not a simple yes-or-no answer.

Can Someone Revoke Permission After Giving It?

Yes. Previous permission should not be assumed to last permanently. A person may withdraw consent expressly, or circumstances identified by Florida law can trigger a presumption that consent was revoked.

An express revocation might be shown by a text message, email, conversation, account removal, demand that a device be returned, or another communication clearly ending permission.

The defense needs to determine exactly when this occurred. If tracking stopped before consent was withdrawn, the State may have difficulty proving unlawful use during the charged period.

If prosecutors claim monitoring continued afterward, I would examine the digital logs to determine whether that assertion is technically accurate.

When Does Florida Law Presume Tracking Consent Was Revoked?

Florida Statute § 934.425(3) contains specific revocation rules. If two people are legally married and one spouse files a petition for dissolution of marriage, previously given tracking consent is presumed revoked.

The statute also presumes consent revoked if the consenting person or the person who received consent files an injunction for protection against the other under § 741.30, § 741.315, § 784.046, or § 784.0485.

This statutory rule can dramatically affect a case. A husband may truthfully say that his wife gave him permission to track her vehicle for years, but prosecutors may focus on location access occurring after the divorce petition was filed.

I would obtain the official filing dates and compare them with the tracking records. One day can matter when the State's theory depends on tracking after presumed revocation.

Does Filing For Divorce Make Prior Consent Irrelevant?

Not necessarily. Earlier consent can still matter because it may explain why the technology was installed and whether the initial installation was lawful. The filing can change the analysis concerning continued use.

Suppose spouses voluntarily activate a family-location service while married. One spouse later files for divorce. If no tracking occurs afterward, the earlier consensual use does not become retroactively unlawful merely because the relationship ended.

If the application remains installed automatically, I would distinguish between its continued presence and proof that a person knowingly used it to determine the spouse's location after the statutory revocation event.

That distinction can be critical. Software can remain active in the background without a user deliberately opening it or viewing someone's location.

What If The Person Said "You Can Always Track Me"?

The wording of the original permission can matter, but it does not necessarily defeat statutory revocation or later withdrawal.

A statement such as "you can always see my location" may establish strong evidence that the initial tracking was consensual. It could help defeat a claim that the device or application was secretly installed from the beginning.

Florida's statutory presumption after a dissolution or specified injunction filing still needs to be considered.

I would preserve the message because it can establish the history of the tracking relationship. Even if prosecutors contend consent later ended, the message may undermine allegations concerning earlier dates and may help explain why your account remained connected to the device or application.

What If Consent Was Limited To A Specific Purpose?

This is another issue I would investigate closely. Permission may be limited rather than unlimited.

An employee may agree to GPS monitoring of a company truck during work hours. A spouse may permit tracking during a long-distance trip. A parent may share a child's location during a particular event. Someone may allow a friend to track luggage while traveling.

The defense should determine whether the alleged tracking remained within the authorized purpose.

If the State claims the technology was used beyond the agreed scope, messages, policies, contracts, or account settings can become important. Ambiguous permission can also create a factual dispute about what each person reasonably understood.

Can Someone Withdraw Consent Without Deleting The App?

Potentially, yes. Consent concerns authorization, not merely whether the application remains technically installed.

A person could tell someone to stop checking a location while the software remains on the phone. Likewise, an account may remain connected after a relationship ends because neither person immediately changes the technical settings.

That does not mean the defense should assume a crime occurred. Prosecutors still need evidence of the defendant's knowing prohibited conduct.

If the application remained installed but no one accessed the location after permission ended, I would use the technical records to challenge the prosecution's use theory.

What Evidence Can Prove Prior Consent?

Consent can be documented in many ways. The best evidence usually comes from records created before a dispute began.

I may look for:

• Text messages or emails discussing location sharing;

• Application invitations sent or accepted by the complaining witness;

• Screenshots showing shared-location settings;

• Business policies or employment agreements;

• Vehicle documentation;

• Witnesses who knew both people used the tracking system;

• Account histories showing mutual tracking; and

• Records showing the complaining witness helped install or configure the technology.

Those records can be more persuasive than competing recollections made months later.

A private attorney can preserve electronic evidence before accounts are deleted, phones are replaced, or applications purge older information.

Does Prior Consent Prevent A Stalking Charge?

Not automatically. Consent to location sharing may be highly important to a § 934.425 tracking charge, but stalking under § 784.048 is a separate offense with separate elements.

For example, a person might have consented to location sharing while also alleging repeated unwanted communications or other conduct. Conversely, prosecutors may try to use supposedly unauthorized tracking as one part of a stalking case.

I would analyze each charge separately. Consent may defeat or weaken the tracking allegation while other alleged conduct still must be evaluated under the stalking statute.

This distinction can also matter because § 934.425 provides enhanced second-degree felony treatment when prohibited tracking is used to commit or facilitate a qualifying dangerous crime. The State should be required to prove that connection, not simply assert it.

What Are The Penalties If Tracking Continued After Consent Ended?

An ordinary violation of § 934.425 is a third-degree felony. A third-degree felony generally permits up to five years of imprisonment, and Florida's fine statute allows up to $5,000.

When the tracking violation is committed to commit or facilitate a qualifying dangerous crime, § 934.425 classifies the tracking offense as a second-degree felony. Florida law generally allows up to 15 years for a second-degree felony and a fine of up to $10,000.

These are statutory maximums, not predictions of an individual sentence. The actual outcome can depend upon criminal history, sentencing scores, negotiations, mitigation, additional charges, and other circumstances.

Because prior consent can materially alter the case, I would gather that evidence early and determine whether it can support dismissal, a decision not to file, suppression of evidence, a reduced charge, or reduced penalties.

Defenses A Florida Criminal Defense Attorney May Raise When Consent Previously Existed

The defense may focus on whether permission remained effective, whether the State can prove when it ended, and whether any prohibited use occurred afterward.

Important arguments may include:

• The alleged tracking occurred while valid consent remained in effect.

• The State cannot prove the date on which consent was withdrawn.

• The application remained installed, but the defendant did not knowingly access location information after consent ended.

• The complaining witness continued sharing location voluntarily after the alleged withdrawal.

• The prosecution's account records do not reliably establish who accessed the location.

• A separate statutory exception applies even if ordinary consent had ended.

• Police unlawfully obtained digital evidence used to establish post-revocation tracking.

These defenses are particularly important when the relationship between the parties deteriorated gradually rather than ending on one clear date.

Example of How I May Build the Defense

Consider an illustrative case involving spouses who used a family-location application for four years. Both could view the other's phone location, and numerous messages confirm that they routinely used the feature.

The wife files for dissolution of marriage. Several weeks later, she reports to police that her husband has been secretly tracking her and provides screenshots showing that his account remains part of the family-location group.

I would obtain the application logs rather than assuming continued account membership proves continued tracking. Suppose those logs show that my client's account never opened his wife's location profile after the dissolution petition was filed. The software simply continued displaying both family members because neither changed the group settings.

I would also preserve the earlier messages proving that the original installation and use were consensual. Those records could defeat allegations concerning the period before filing, while the post-filing logs could undermine the claim of knowing use afterward.

Depending on the complete facts, I could seek dismissal, challenge the sufficiency of the State's evidence, or use those weaknesses to pursue a reduced charge or penalties.

This example illustrates how I may build a defense. It is not a claim regarding a particular undocumented Musca Law result, and no criminal result can be guaranteed.

Florida Criminal Defense FAQs About Previous Permission To Track Someone

If Someone Gave Me Permission Once, Can I Keep Tracking Them Forever?

Not necessarily. Consent can be withdrawn, and Florida law also presumes revocation when certain statutory events occur.

For spouses, a petition for dissolution of marriage triggers presumed revocation. Certain injunction filings also trigger the statutory presumption. The exact timeline therefore matters greatly in a criminal investigation.

What If The Person Never Told Me To Stop Tracking Them?

That can be significant, but it may not resolve every case. Prosecutors may rely on a statutory event that presumes revocation, such as a qualifying divorce or injunction filing.

When no statutory presumption applies, I would examine the communications and conduct of the parties to determine whether consent remained in effect or was otherwise withdrawn.

Can Old Text Messages Prove I Had Permission?

Yes, old messages can be valuable defense evidence. A text in which the other person asks you to install a tracker or invites you into a location-sharing account may directly contradict a claim that the tracking was secretly initiated.

The message still needs to be compared with later events. Permission existing in January does not necessarily establish permission in September if the person clearly revoked it in between.

What If The App Automatically Kept Sharing Their Location?

That distinction can be important because § 934.425 requires knowing prohibited conduct. An application remaining active automatically is not necessarily the same factual situation as deliberately opening the program and using it to determine another person's location.

I would seek usage logs showing whether you actually accessed location information after consent allegedly ended. Technical evidence may be central to establishing what occurred.

Does A Breakup Automatically Revoke Consent?

Section 934.425 expressly identifies certain events that create presumed revocation, including a dissolution petition between married parties and specified protective-injunction filings. An ordinary breakup between unmarried partners is not described in that specific statutory subsection in the same way.

That does not mean an unmarried former partner cannot revoke consent. Permission can still be expressly withdrawn, so the communications between the parties and the exact facts need to be examined.

Should I Show Police Messages Proving Consent?

Potentially useful evidence should generally be preserved, but I would be careful about giving investigators selected material without first understanding the entire case. A message that appears helpful may contain another statement prosecutors interpret differently.

A private attorney can review the complete conversation, preserve favorable evidence, and determine when and how it should be provided to investigators or prosecutors.

Contact Our Florida Criminal Defense Attorney When Previous Tracking Consent Is Disputed

A tracking case involving previous consent can turn on a handful of dates, messages, account logs, and court filings. I would reconstruct that history carefully because the difference between authorized location sharing and felony tracking may depend on whether the State can prove knowing use after permission actually ended.

Contact Musca Law 24/7/365 at 1-888-484-5057 For Your FREE Consultation. Musca Law, P.A. has a team of experienced criminal defense attorneys dedicated to defending people charged with a criminal or traffic offense. We are available 24/7/365 at 1-888-484-5057 for your FREE consultation. We have 35 office locations throughout the state of Florida and serve all counties in Florida, including Jacksonville, Miami, Tampa, Orlando, St. Petersburg, Hialeah, Port St. Lucie, Cape Coral, Tallahassee, Fort Lauderdale, West Palm Beach, Gainesville, Clearwater, Lakeland, Hollywood, Pembroke Pines, Fort Myers, Naples, Daytona Beach, and Pensacola, the Florida Panhandle, and every county in Florida.