Using phones, online accounts, connected devices, or other technology to monitor a person’s movements and communications may constitute coercive control, stalking, harassment, or disturbance of the person’s peace.

Technology Can Be Used to Exercise Control

Conduct may include accessing private accounts, tracking a person’s location, monitoring communications, controlling passwords, using internet-connected devices, or appearing at places based on secretly obtained location information.

The court considers how the technology was used and whether it interfered with the petitioner’s privacy, autonomy, safety, or emotional calm.

Indirect Monitoring May Also Matter

A person may use children, relatives, landlords, friends, or shared accounts to obtain information about the petitioner’s location and activities.

Indirect conduct can qualify as abuse when it is part of a controlling, threatening, or harassing pattern. The respondent need not personally follow the petitioner for tracking evidence to be relevant.

Digital Evidence Should Be Preserved Carefully

Account alerts, login histories, screenshots, device settings, messages, location-sharing records, and statements suggesting surveillance may help establish the conduct.

The petitioner should preserve evidence before changing access when safe to do so. Any account-security steps should be taken carefully when the respondent may react to losing access.

Existing Orders Control Contact and Monitoring

A TRO or DVRO may prohibit direct and indirect contact, surveillance, harassment, or conduct that disturbs the protected person’s peace. The exact written terms control.

The protected party should not attempt unauthorized access to the respondent’s accounts in return. Evidence-gathering must remain lawful and consistent with all existing orders.

A California DVRO attorney can organize digital evidence, explain how monitoring fits the legal definition of abuse, and request protective terms addressing accounts, devices, indirect contact, and location tracking.