My name is Patrick L Bailey II, owner of Ohio Security & Investigations and 10 8 Protective Services in Ohio. Over the years, I have built a reputation for conducting investigations with integrity using ethical effective and legally sound methods. A key principle in my work has always been ensuring that every investigative technique aligns with legal requirements and ethical standards. One investigative tool I have consistently chosen to avoid is GPS tracking, despite its growing popularity in private investigations.

Some investigators rely on GPS devices, especially in infidelity cases, to follow subjects, assuming that tracking someone’s movements remotely is an efficient way to gather intelligence. However, I have always refused to use this approach. Not only does GPS tracking raise substantial ethical concerns, but Ohio’s Senate Bill 100 has now made unauthorized tracking illegal. This legislation reinforces what experienced professionals have known for years boots on the ground surveillance remains the gold standard in uncovering the truth.

The Misconception of GPS Tracking

At first glance GPS tracking might seem like a convenient way to monitor an individual. Many believe that simply attaching a tracker to a vehicle will provide real-time access to a person’s whereabouts, enabling an investigator to gather useful information without physical surveillance. However, this assumption is fundamentally flawed as GPS tracking presents several critical issues

🚫 Lack of context A GPS device only provides location data. It cannot reveal who a subject is meeting, what they are doing at any given place or why they have chosen to go there. Simply knowing that someone visited a specific location does not prove misconduct or tell the full story behind their actions.

🚫 No visual confirmation Investigative work is built on tangible evidence. The most compelling proof comes from photos videos, timestamps and direct observations that clearly document a subject’s behavior and interactions. GPS can only track movement, but it cannot capture actions. Without clear images and behavioral analysis, a GPS reading remains weak circumstantial evidence rather than a definitive conclusion.

🚫 Legal and ethical risks with the passing of Senate Bill 100 placing a GPS tracking device on a person’s vehicle without their consent is now illegal in Ohio. Any investigator who engages in unauthorized tracking risks facing legal consequences including lawsuits and criminal penalties. Furthermore, GPS tracking violates privacy rights by exposing both the investigator and client to liability and reputational damage. A professional investigator should always prioritize ethical responsibility over questionable shortcuts.

Surveillance vs GPS Tracking Why Human Observation Wins Every Time

Because of the limitations of GPS tracking, I have always prioritized team-based surveillance which relies on multi-trained investigators using multiple vehicles to track a subject’s movements discreetly and effectively. While some view this approach as resource intensive the reality is that it produces consistent results. When surveillance is conducted properly the truth is always uncovered.

Here is why traditional surveillance dramatically outperforms GPS tracking

✅ Undetectable presence A subject who suspects they are being followed by one vehicle will often pick up patterns and change their behavior to avoid being caught. However, using multiple investigators rotating positions ensures that surveillance remains virtually invisible, allowing us to blend in seamlessly without being noticed.

✅ Real time adaptability Individuals engaged in deceptive behavior frequently make impulsive decisions switching locations unexpectedly or altering their routes. GPS technology cannot react in real time to sudden movement changes whereas human investigators can adjust instantly ensuring that no trail is ever lost.

✅ Ironclad proof A GPS ping only tells you where someone was. It does not confirm what they were doing or who they were with. Traditional surveillance provides verified photographic and video evidence along with detailed investigative reports and witness observations. This level of documentation eliminates doubt and ensures that clients receive undeniable proof rather than incomplete assumptions.

✅ Legal and ethical compliance Unlike GPS tracking boots on the ground surveillance follows legal procedures comply with privacy laws and ensures that clients receive court admissible evidence without the risk of violating regulations. Using physical surveillance rather than invasive tracking preserves integrity professionalism and accountability.

Final Thoughts

Technology continues to advance in the world of investigations, but it should never replace expertise. While GPS tracking may seem convenient it ultimately introduces legal risks, ethical concerns and investigative limitations that make it a poor substitute for real surveillance.

Ohio’s Senate Bill 100 serves as a powerful reminder of what ethical investigators have always recognized, tracking someone’s location without their consent is not only intrusive, but also illegal.

For me the right approach has always been
🔎 Real surveillance
📍 Strategic planning
👥 A well-coordinated investigative team

This is how we uncover the truth every time and this is why traditional surveillance will always reign supreme over GPS tracking.