Texas Criminal Framework
Section summaryTexas Penal Code §16.02 makes it an offense to intentionally intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication. The statute is the primary state-law hook for stalkerware installations that capture communications.
Section 16.02 elements:
- Intentionally intercepts a wire, oral, or electronic communication.
- Intentionally discloses contents of intercepted communications.
- Intentionally uses contents of intercepted communications.
- Knowingly possesses an interception device with intent to use.
The statute is a second-degree felony in most charging scenarios. Defenses include consent (see below), authorization by court order, and provider exceptions for interception necessary to provide service. Stalkerware installations rarely fit within any defense.
The companion statute at Penal Code §16.06 reaches unlawful installation of a tracking device on a motor vehicle, which is increasingly relevant to mobile-phone GPS tracking by an estranged partner.
Federal Wiretap Act
Section summary18 U.S.C. §2511 criminalizes intentional interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications. When a stalkerware app captures messages crossing state lines or the internet, federal exposure attaches.
Section 2511 framework:
- Intentionally intercepts any wire, oral, or electronic communication.
- Intentionally discloses contents knowing the information was obtained through interception.
- Intentionally uses contents knowing the information was obtained through interception.
- Felony with statutory maximum of five years.
- One-party-consent exception at §2511(2)(d) (one party to the communication consents and the purpose is not tortious or criminal).
Federal prosecutions for purely domestic stalkerware are uncommon but have occurred when the conduct produced interstate evidence — emails routed through out-of-state servers, cloud backups crossing state lines, or victims and offenders in different states.
Consent & One-Party Recording
Section summaryBoth Texas and federal law are one-party-consent jurisdictions for the recording of communications. A party to a conversation can lawfully record it. Stalkerware installations almost never qualify because the installer is not a party to the captured communications.
Consent analysis:
- One-party-consent — Texas and federal default.
- Party to the communication can record without notifying others.
- Installer of stalkerware is rarely a party to the captured communications.
- Marital relationship does not by itself create consent.
- Joint ownership of device does not equal consent to monitor.
The recurring error in stalkerware cases is the installer's assumption that marital status or shared device ownership creates consent. It does not. The interception statute requires consent from a party to the communication itself, not authorization from a co-owner of the device.
Common Scenarios
Section summaryStalkerware cases cluster around two fact patterns: estranged-partner monitoring and employer over-monitoring. Each presents distinct issues.
Estranged-partner scenario:
- Installer obtains physical access to the target's phone.
- Covertly installs monitoring app capturing messages, calls, location, photos.
- Conduct often coincides with family-violence protective order or divorce filing.
- Discovery typically follows a routine phone update or security scan.
- Charges can include §16.02 plus family-violence enhancements.
Employer over-monitoring scenario:
- Employer issues phone or laptop with monitoring software disclosed in policy.
- Monitoring scope exceeds disclosure — captures personal communications or activity off-duty.
- Employee learns of the over-monitoring after the fact.
- Civil exposure under Chapter 123 and federal §2520; criminal exposure depends on employer-issued-device exception scope.
Civil Remedies
Section summaryTexas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Chapter 123 creates a civil cause of action for wiretap-style violations. Federal civil suit authority sits at 18 U.S.C. §2520.
Texas civil framework:
- Actual damages or statutory damages of $10,000.
- Punitive damages available for willful conduct.
- Attorneys fees and costs.
- Injunctive relief.
- Two-year statute of limitations.
Federal civil framework under §2520:
- Statutory damages of greater of actual damages or $10,000.
- Punitive damages.
- Attorneys fees.
- Equitable relief.
- Two-year statute of limitations from reasonable discovery.
Civil and criminal proceedings frequently run in parallel. A defendant facing both should coordinate counsel to manage Fifth Amendment exposure during the civil discovery process.
FTC Vendor Enforcement
Section summaryThe Federal Trade Commission has pursued stalkerware vendors under its 15 U.S.C. §45 unfair-and-deceptive-practices authority. Enforcement focuses on the vendors, not the individual installers.
FTC enforcement features:
- Unfair and deceptive practices authority under §45.
- Vendors marketing covert-monitoring functionality face liability for facilitating illegal interception.
- Settlements have required vendor exit from the consumer stalkerware market.
- Data-security obligations imposed by consent order.
- Notification requirements when monitoring is detected on a device.
FTC enforcement supplements but does not replace state criminal exposure for the installer. A defendant cannot point to vendor compliance posture as a defense to §16.02 charges.
Need defense counsel?
L&L Law Group, PLLC handles Computer Crimes Defense cases throughout DFW. Initial consultations are free.
Call (972) 370-5060 →The dual-track prosecution for stalkerware installation and use
The installation and use of spyware or stalkerware on a victim device can be prosecuted under multiple Texas statutes simultaneously. The base stalking offense under Texas Penal Code Section 42.072 can encompass the surveillance conduct as part of a course of stalking conduct, with the stalkerware installation providing the means of the surveillance. The breach of computer security offense under Penal Code Section 33.02 reaches the unauthorized access to a computer or network, which includes the installation of unauthorized software on the victim device. The unlawful interception offense under Code of Criminal Procedure Chapter 18A or related federal Wiretap Act provisions can reach the interception of electronic communications through the stalkerware.
The dual-track structure means that a single act of stalkerware installation can support charges under multiple statutes with separate penalty exposures. Section 33.02 violations range from Class B misdemeanor to first-degree felony depending on the aggregate loss caused, the involvement of critical infrastructure, and other aggravating circumstances. Stalking under Section 42.072 ranges from third-degree felony to second-degree felony depending on enhancements. The defendant facing comprehensive charges can face decades of potential incarceration based on a single course of stalkerware-enabled surveillance.
The federal exposure can be even more substantial. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act at 18 U.S.C. Section 1030 reaches unauthorized access to protected computers and includes specific provisions on the obtaining of information through unauthorized access. The federal Wiretap Act at 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510 through 2522 reaches the interception of communications. The federal interstate stalking statute at 18 U.S.C. Section 2261A reaches stalking conduct using interstate communication facilities. A federal prosecution can include CFAA charges, Wiretap Act charges, and Section 2261A charges arising from the same conduct.
The forensic evidence and the chain of custody
Stalkerware cases turn on forensic evidence extracted from the victim device. The forensic analysis typically identifies the specific stalkerware application installed on the device, the date and method of installation, the data accessed or transmitted by the application, and the recipient of the transmitted data. The forensic analysis is conducted by law enforcement examiners or by private digital forensic experts retained by the alleged victim or the prosecution.
The defense must scrutinize the forensic methodology and the chain of custody. The examination should be conducted on a forensically sound image of the device rather than the original device, the imaging process must be documented through hash verification, the examination tools must be widely accepted in the forensic community, and the examination report must include sufficient detail to allow defense review. The defense should retain its own forensic expert to review the methodology, to conduct an independent examination of the imaging, and to identify any methodological gaps that affect the reliability of the conclusions.
The attribution of the stalkerware installation to the defendant is often the most contested element. The forensic evidence may identify the application but may not directly identify who installed it. Alternative explanations include installation by a third party with access to the device, installation by the alleged victim for legitimate purposes such as parental controls or device recovery, installation by a previous device owner before the victim acquired the device, and installation through a phishing attack that the defendant did not perpetrate. Each alternative explanation must be developed through specific evidence and expert analysis.
The consent defense and the joint-account complications
The consent of the alleged victim to the installation can be a complete defense to certain charges. A defendant who installed monitoring software on a device with the explicit consent of the alleged victim has not committed an unauthorized access. The consent must be specific, informed, and given by a person with authority to consent. A defendant who installed monitoring on a family member device based on a general understanding that the family shared devices may face a contested consent issue if the alleged victim now denies giving consent to the specific surveillance.
Joint-account and shared-device circumstances complicate the consent analysis. A married couple who share devices, accounts, and passwords creates a presumption of mutual access that complicates any allegation of unauthorized access. The defense in a joint-account case must establish that the alleged victim shared access to the relevant systems, that the alleged victim had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the accessed information, and that the defendant access was within the scope of the shared arrangement. Texas courts have generally accepted shared-account defenses in cases where the underlying sharing arrangement is documented and uncontested.
Cohabitation and domestic relationships also raise specific consent issues. A defendant who installed parental control software on a child device with the consent of both parents has not engaged in unauthorized access, even if the relationship later deteriorated and the other parent now characterizes the software as stalkerware. The defendant who installed device-recovery software for purposes of recovering a stolen device has not engaged in unauthorized access, even if the device is now in possession of a former intimate partner. Each of these scenarios requires careful factual development and may produce successful consent or authorization defenses.
Pretrial litigation and the technical motion practice
Pretrial litigation in stalkerware cases involves substantial technical motion practice. Motions to suppress can challenge the validity of the warrants that authorized the forensic examination, the scope of the warrants, and the execution of the warrants. The Texas exclusionary rule at Article 38.23 reaches violations of Texas constitutional and statutory privacy protections that extend beyond the federal Fourth Amendment, and the motion-to-suppress practice should develop both federal and state grounds.
The defense should also consider motions in limine on the forensic expert testimony. The expert testimony must satisfy the Daubert and Kelly standards for reliability and qualification. A motion in limine can require the prosecution to make a pretrial showing that the expert is qualified, that the methodology is reliable, and that the conclusions are within the scope of the expert qualifications. The defense expert can support the motion through an affidavit identifying specific methodological concerns with the prosecution expert work.
Discovery in stalkerware cases should pursue both the forensic materials and the underlying digital evidence. Article 39.14 discovery requests should reach the forensic image of the alleged victim device, the examination reports and all working notes, the examiner qualifications and training records, the chain of custody documentation, any communications between the examiner and law enforcement, and any communications between the alleged victim and the examiner. Each category of discovery can produce evidence supporting defense theories of alternative attribution, consent, or methodological weakness in the prosecution case.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a parent legally install monitoring software on a minor child's phone?
Does marital status authorize monitoring of a spouse's phone?
Can an employer monitor a company-issued device?
What if I only used the app to track location, not messages?
Are encrypted-messaging interceptions different?
Read the full Texas Computer Crimes Defense Guide
This article is one section of our comprehensive Texas Computer Crimes Defense Guide. The pillar guide covers recent developments, official resources, and the complete framework with deeper analysis.
Read the Pillar Guide →Next Steps
If you are facing a situation described here, consult counsel promptly. Many issues in this area run on strict deadlines.
- Call (972) 370-5060
- Email info@landllawgroup.com
Cite this guide
Bluebook: Reggie London & Njeri London, Spyware & Stalkerware Cases Under Texas & Federal Law, L&L Law Group (May 30, 2026), https://landllawgroup.com/insights/spyware-stalkerware-cases-texas/.
APA: London, R., & London, N. (2026, May 30). Spyware & Stalkerware Cases Under Texas & Federal Law. L&L Law Group.