Airtags, “Find My”, hidden cameras and tracking apps: When “checking in” becomes stalking in NSW
Lots of couples know each other’s passwords. Lots of parents use smart devices, cameras and trackers. But when a relationship breaks down, or when fear and obsession take over, those same tools can become the basis for stalking, intimidation, AVOs, and in some cases coercive control allegations. NSW Police now explicitly list using spyware, tracking apps, GPS devices and smart devices to monitor another person as stalking behaviour, and NSW modernised the legal definition of stalking from 1 December 2024 to expressly capture technology-based monitoring and tracking.
That matters because people in trouble are not usually asking, “What is the history of stalking law?” They are asking: Can I get charged for tracking my ex’s car? What if I only checked her location because I was worried? What if we used to share passwords? What if I put an AirTag in a bag I bought? What if police say my repeated texts, calls and location checks are part of coercive control? Those are the real questions.
NCL already has highly relevant material here, especially “Stalking in NSW: When ‘Checking In’ Becomes a Criminal Offence”, “Why Did This Woman Get Charged for Calling Her Ex Too Much?”, the stalk/intimidate offence page, and a fresh case study where a stalk-or-intimidate domestic-violence charge was withdrawn.
Why this topic matters right now
Because NSW is plainly treating tech-facilitated abuse as a growing harm, not a niche one. In June 2025, the NSW Government warned of rising tech-facilitated coercive control and said almost 8,000 women had sought help from Legal Aid NSW’s Domestic Violence Unit in the last financial year. NSW also passed new domestic-violence reforms in September 2024 that toughened parts of the law, modernised stalking, and introduced further protective measures. The ABC then reported in September 2025 that new serious domestic abuse prevention orders can even let courts authorise police monitoring of offenders’ phones and require them to report new dating profiles. That is a remarkable sign of how seriously the state now takes digital abuse and tracking conduct.
In other words, this is not an area where the law is standing still. It is moving in a tougher, more technology-aware direction.
What is the actual offence?
The main offence is s 13 of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW). The section says that a person who stalks or intimidates another person with the intention of causing the other person to fear physical or mental harm is guilty of an offence. The maximum penalty is 5 years’ imprisonment or 50 penalty units, or both. The Judicial Commission’s sentencing materials also note that a person intends to cause fear if they know the conduct is likely to cause fear, and that an attempt carries the same penalty as the completed offence.
That wording matters because many readers assume stalking means following someone down the street. It can, but it is much broader than that. NSW Police now expressly say stalking can include accessing someone’s social media, using spyware or tracking apps, GPS devices or other smart devices to monitor movements, or otherwise using technology to watch and track them.
FAQ: “Can I really be charged just for using an AirTag or location tracking?”
Yes, potentially. Since 1 December 2024, NSW’s expanded stalking definition specifically captures the use of technology to monitor or track a person’s activities or movements. That means the old excuse – “I never physically followed them” – is much weaker than it used to be. If the tracking is part of conduct alleged to be stalking or intimidation, police may charge it that way.
That does not mean every instance of consensual location sharing becomes criminal. It means that once consent ends, the relationship breaks down, or the monitoring becomes secretive, repeated or fear-inducing, the legal risk increases sharply.
FAQ: “What if we used to share passwords or location?”
That is exactly the kind of fact that makes these cases complicated. Prior consent can matter evidentially, but it does not give permanent permission to keep monitoring someone after the relationship changes. Once the other person withdraws consent, blocks access, or the surrounding context becomes coercive or controlling, the prosecution may say ongoing monitoring is now criminal. That is one reason these matters should be approached carefully: the same digital access that looked normal during a relationship can look sinister afterwards.
FAQ: “What if I was only checking on them because I was worried?”
That is a common explanation, and sometimes it is genuine. But it is not a complete legal answer. Police and courts will usually look at the whole course of conduct: repeated location checks, hidden devices, unwanted messages, showing up unexpectedly, surveillance, login activity, pressure on friends or family, and prior relationship history. The issue is not just your claimed motive. It is whether the conduct, taken as a whole, amounts to stalking or intimidation and was intended to cause fear of physical or mental harm.
This is where our “When do emotions become intimidation?” article and the newer case study on a withdrawn stalk-or-intimidate DV charge are so useful. They help show readers that these cases often turn on context, not just raw screenshots.
How police usually approach these allegations
Police experience and tendency in this area matter a lot. NSW Police publicly define stalking broadly and specifically mention tech tools like GPS trackers, spyware and smart devices. In domestic-violence settings, police are especially likely to treat hidden tracking and repeated digital monitoring as risk indicators, not as neutral behaviour. That is even more true now that coercive control is a stand-alone criminal issue in NSW and the Government is openly warning about “insidious” tech-facilitated control.
So if you are thinking, “Maybe the police will see this as just relationship drama,” that is usually the wrong assumption. The current enforcement climate points the other way.
What evidence do police actually use in these cases?
Usually, more than the accused expects:
- screenshots of messages and calls,
- AirTag or device screenshots,
- “Find My” logs,
- login history,
- app notifications,
- location data,
- CCTV showing unexplained appearances,
- statements from the complainant and their friends,
- sometimes seized phones and downloaded contents.
That is one reason why what you do in the first 24 hours matters. Deleting apps, wiping devices, contacting the complainant, or trying to “explain” the tracking can make things much worse. NCL should naturally link its police interview and urgent help pages here because these matters often begin with a police contact that feels deceptively informal.
FAQ: “Does this automatically mean I will get an AVO too?”
Not automatically, but very often these allegations travel with AVO issues. In a domestic or former-intimate-partner setting, police may seek or support an ADVO even where the substantive criminal charge is still being investigated or defended. NCL’s AVO guide explains that people served with AVOs often consent “without admissions,” but doing that can still carry significant consequences, including working-with-children and firearms implications. If the tracking allegation sits within a broader pattern of digital abuse, an ADVO is highly likely to be part of the practical picture.
FAQ: “Could this become coercive control too?”
Yes, depending on the facts. The NSW Government and Legal Aid have been explicit that tech-facilitated abuse can form part of coercive control, and the coercive control offence focuses on a course of conduct involving abusive behaviour toward a current or former intimate partner. Hidden tracking, monitoring, repeated digital pressure, isolation and surveillance can all fit into that broader allegation in the right case. That is why readers should not think only in terms of a single s 13 charge. Sometimes the real risk is that police and prosecutors will frame the conduct as part of a larger domestic-violence narrative.
FAQ: “Will I get bail if I’m charged?”
That depends on the facts, prior history, whether there is an AVO already in place, whether there are allegations of breach, and how serious or repetitive the conduct is said to be. In domestic-violence-related stalking matters, bail conditions can be strict and often mirror or reinforce the no-contact and non-approach features of AVOs. This is why early strategy matters. A person who keeps contacting the complainant after learning police are involved can make bail, the charge, and any future sentencing outcome much worse.
How courts think about these matters
The Judicial Commission’s domestic-violence sentencing material shows clearly that NSW courts treat domestic-violence-related offending seriously and place strong weight on victim safety. That means a reader should not expect a magistrate to shrug off “only digital” behaviour. The whole direction of the law is that technology can now be as much a tool of fear and control as physical presence.
At the same time, these cases are often more defensible than they first appear. Sometimes the conduct is overstated. Sometimes the evidence of tracking is ambiguous. Sometimes devices were shared, family-based, or used for other legitimate purposes. Sometimes the context is buried under relationship conflict. That is why NCL’s fresh withdrawn charge case study is so valuable – it shows that context and effective representations can matter enormously.
Contact Us
If you are being investigated for stalking, intimidation, tracking an ex-partner, using an AirTag or tracking app, or a related AVO or coercive control allegation, do not assume this is just a private relationship dispute. In NSW, the law now squarely targets technology-facilitated monitoring and surveillance, and these cases can escalate quickly.
At National Criminal Lawyers®, we understand how digital evidence is used in stalking and domestic-violence matters. We can advise early, manage police contact, contest overcharging, protect your position on AVOs and bail, and put the right context before the court. Call us at 1800 CRIM LAW for a free consultation. Help us help you understand your situation and get you the best outcome possible.
