Defendant Had Sufficient Interest in Vehicle to Prohibit Prosecution For Placing Tracking Device on Vehicle.

State v. Hormann, Minn.Ct.App., 10/19/2011.  The state charged Mr. Hormann with stalking his then-wife, and with placing a tracking device on a car that she mostly drove but actually belonged to him.  The appellate court upheld the stalking conviction but reversed the tracking device conviction.

Along the way, the former wife testified generally about what a horrid marriage it had been and broadly characterized Mr. Hormann as someone who broke every door in the couple’s home, broke the walls, physically abused her, engaged in “a lot of violence,” was “very angry,” was “controlling” of her and of money – you get the picture.  The appellate court concluded that this amounted to inadmissible character evidence.  It was, however, harmless error to have admitted it.

Now to the tracking device.  The statute, Minn.Stat. 626A.35, subd. 1, does not apply “where the consent of the owner of the [vehicle] to which the mobile tracking device is to be attached has been obtained.”  In this case, Mr. Jacobs’ spouse had signed title to the car over to him even though she was the person who drove it the most.  Mr. Jacobs’ failure to have recorded that transfer did not defeat his interest in the car.    He was thus an “owner” under the statute and could not be prosecuted for placing the tracking device on the car.